ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2021 –

PIK-KO v EUIPO – Haribo Ricqles Zan (P.I.C. Co.)

(Case T‑73/21)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark P.I.C. Co. – Earlier national figurative mark PIK – 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) – Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Declaration of partial invalidity)

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 53(1)(a)) (see paras 19-21, 53)

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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see para. 23)

3. 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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see para. 25)

4. 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 27, 28, 30)

5. 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 – Figurative marks P.I.C. Co. and PIK (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 38, 47, 51, 52, 61-65)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2020 (Case R 1847/2019-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Haribo Ricqles Zan and PIK-KO.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Privileges and immunities of the European Union – Members of the European Parliament – Immunity – Request for waiver of immunity – Discretion of the Parliament – Judicial review – Scope

(Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, Art. 9)

(see paras 23, 24)
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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27-29)
3.

European Union public contracts – Cancellation of the tendering procedure – Discretion of the contracting authority – Limits – Respect for the principle prohibiting abuse of rights and the principle of good faith (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2018/1046, Art. 171) (see paras 49-52)
1.

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Assessment of distinctive character – Sign being confused with the appearance of the designated product (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 11, 12, 17-21)
Judicial proceedings – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – Amplification of an existing plea – Admissibility – Analogous solution for claims raised in support of a plea

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1))

(see paras 15, 16)
Officials – Duty of the administration to have regard for the welfare of officials – Scope – Greater obligation in a case affecting the health of the official – Limits

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 24)

(see paras 97-99)
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 on the market – Effect (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 58)
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 enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Relevant public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 19)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2022 –
PricewaterhouseCoopers Belastingadviseurs v EUIPO – Haufe-Lexware (TAXMARC)
(Case T-619/21)1
(EU trade mark  –  Opposition proceedings  –  Application for EU word mark TAXMARC  –  
Prior EU figurative mark TAXMAN  –  Suspension of proceedings  –  Article 71(1) of Delegated 
Regulation (EU) 2018/625 )
1. EU trade mark  –  Appeals procedure  –  Appeals before the Boards of Appeal  –  Suspension of 
proceedings  –  Conditions
(Commission Regulation 2018/625, Recital 17 and Art. 71(1))
(see paras 22-26)
2. EU trade mark  –  Appeals procedure  –  Appeals before the Boards of Appeal  –  Suspension of 
proceedings  –  Preliminary examination of the question of the suspension prior to any 
examination of the appeal
(Commission Regulation 2018/625, Art. 71(1))
(see para. 27)
3. EU trade mark  –  Observations of third parties and opposition  –  Examination of the 
opposition  –  Suspension of proceedings  –  Action for suspension based on an action for 
invalidity brought against the previous trade mark  –  Dismissal of the application by reason 
of the introduction of the said action during opposition proceedings  –  Not permissible
(Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 20(7)(c))
(see para. 29)
4. EU trade mark  –  Appeals procedure  –  Appeals before the Boards of Appeal  –  Suspension of 
proceedings  –  Discretion of the Board of Appeal  –  Prima facie assessment of the likelihood of 
success of an application for a declaration of invalidity and of the bearing on the opposition
(Commission Regulation 2018/625, Art. 71(1))
ENReports of Cases
1 OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
ECLI:EU:T:2022:270                                                                                                          1INFORMATION ON UNPUBLISHED DECISIONS
(see para. 32)
Operative part
The Court:
1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual 
Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 July 2021 (Case R 131/2021-4);
2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by PricewaterhouseCoopers 
Belastingadviseurs NV for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court;
3. Orders Haufe-Lexware GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings 
before the Court.
2                                                                                                                  ECLI:EU:T:2022:270
EU law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Right to effective judicial protection – Restrictive measures directed against the Democratic Republic of the Congo – Freezing of funds of persons undermining the rule of law or contributing to the commission of acts that constitute serious human rights violations – Obligation to disclose individual and specific grounds for the decisions adopted – Obligation to enable the person concerned effectively to put forward his or her point of view regarding the reasons relied on against him or her – Scope

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033, Annex II; Council Regulations No 1183/2005 and 2020/2021, Annex)

(see paras 51-53)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Third-party proceedings - Conditions of admissibility - Third-party status - Non-participation in the original proceedings for valid reasons of the third party - Publication in the Official Journal of the subject-matter of and form of order sought in actions - Effect

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 39; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 16(6) and 97(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 24(6) and 123(1))

Summary

It follows from Article 39 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Articles 16(6) and 97(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and Articles 24(6) and 123(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that the Community legislature considered third-party proceedings to be an exceptional review procedure which may be initiated by interested persons who, for valid reasons, were unable to intervene in the original proceedings. The extraordinary nature of third-party proceedings is justified by the consideration that, in the interests of the efficient administration of justice and certainty in legal relations, it is necessary to prevent so far as possible persons having an interest in the result of proceedings pending before the Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance from asserting that interest after the Community court has delivered its judgment and thus settled the question in dispute.

Accordingly, any interested person who was in a position to participate in the original proceedings but who failed to intervene should not be able to rely on the right to bring third-party proceedings. Since publication in the Official Journal of the subject-matter of the original application and the form of order sought therein is intended to enable third parties to inform themselves about actions pending before the Community courts, it is by reference to that publication that a third party must assess whether it has an interest in intervening in the original proceedings.

If it is clear from that notice that the subject-matter of and form of order sought in the original proceedings disclosed that the third party had an interest in intervening, that party must show that it was prevented, for valid reasons, from bringing an application to intervene. Its subjective assessment as to the outcome of the proceedings does not constitute a valid reason justifying the third party' s non-participation in the original proceedings. Accordingly, a third party may not argue that, given the information as to fact and law known at the time when the action was started, a reasonable person would have been entitled to think that the judgment bringing the proceedings to an end would not prejudice his rights.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 1996. - Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter AG (devenue Preussag Stahl AG) v Commission of the European Communities. - Taxation of costs. - Case T-120/89.



European Court reports 1996 Page II-01547



Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Factors to be taken into account

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91)

2 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Meaning - Factors to be taken into account

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91)

Summary

3 The Community judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but it may determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. It follows that it is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers' fees or any agreement concluded in relation to fees.

Since Community law does not contain provisions on fee scales, the Court must freely consider the circumstances at issue, having regard to the subject-matter and nature of the dispute and its significance from the point of view of Community law, as well as to the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by it for the lawyer and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.

The ability of the Community judicature to assess the amount of work generated by the case for the lawyers and the value of the work carried out is dependent on the accuracy of the information provided in that regard by the parties.

4 The significance of a case from the point of view of Community law by reason of the new and important questions of law and the complex questions of fact which it raises may justify, first, high fees and, secondly, a party's being represented by a number of lawyers.

Since the Court takes account, in fixing the recoverable costs, of all the circumstances of the case up to the date of its decision, there is no need to give a ruling on either a claim for interest for late payment or the costs incurred in relation to proceedings for the taxation of costs.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Officials - Action - Prior complaint through official channels - Complaint lodged after the action - Manifest inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 111)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Intervention - Actions concerning the civil service - Intervention by a trade-union organization - Admissibility - Conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 115; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.)

Summary

An application to intervene by a trade-union organization is admissible in actions concerning the civil service where the judgment is likely to affect a collective interest.

The question as to what are the duties of a Community institution following the annulment by the Court of First Instance of a decision rejecting the application of some of its staff to take part in a competition comes within the sphere of collective interests the defence of which is one of the objects of trade-union organizations under their statutes.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure ° Disputes between the Communities and their servants before the Court of First Instance ° Composition of the bench hearing the case ° Designation of an Advocate General ° Criteria

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 12(1), 14, 18 and 51)

2. Procedure ° Lodging of defence ° Time-limit ° Point from which time starts to run ° Receipt of the application by the defendant

(Rules of Procedure, Arts 46(1) and 101(2))

Summary

1. In disputes between the Community and one of its servants within the meaning of Article 12(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the Chamber hearing the case has, in accordance with Articles 14, 18 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, the right but not the duty to request the Court of First Instance sitting in plenary session to refer the case either to the plenary session itself or to a Chamber composed of a different number of Judges and to designate an Advocate General. The exercise of that right is subject to the criteria specified in the Rules of Procedure which are, for a referral to a bench of different composition, the legal difficulty or the importance of the case or special circumstances and, for the designation of the Advocate General, the legal difficulty or factual complexity of the case.

2. The period of one month prescribed by Article 46(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance for lodging the defence does not begin to run against the defendant until the date of receipt of the application by the defendant.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Application initiating proceedings ° Formal requirements ° Brief statement of the grounds relied upon ° Pleas in law not set out in the application ° Reference to all the annexes ° Inadmissibility

(EEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

Summary

Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the application initiating the proceedings must contain the subject-matter of the dispute and a brief statement of the grounds on which the application is based. Irrespective of any question of terminology, that statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court of First Instance to exercise its power of judicial review. The principles of both legal certainty and sound administration of justice require that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be set out with sufficient clarity in the application itself. Whilst the body of the application may be underpinned and supplemented on specific points by references to extracts from documents annexed thereto, an overall reference to all the documents annexed to the application in order to set out the basic arguments in law does not satisfy the requirements of the Statute of the Court of Justice or the Rules of Procedure. It is not for the Court of First Instance to substitute its own assessment for that of the applicant and to attempt to seek and identify in the annexes, which have a purely evidential and instrumental function, the grounds on which it may consider the action to be based.

Pleas which have not been stated, even in summary form, in the application cannot lawfully be developed in the reply.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of the operation of a measure ° Suspension of the operation of a disciplinary measure ° Conditions for granting ° Prima facie grounds ° Serious and irreparable harm ° Non-economic damage ° Balancing of all the interests involved ° Financial damage

(EEC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure ° Intervention ° Application for interim measures ° Persons having an interest ° Main proceedings relating to the validity of a decision implementing the competition rules ° Complainant undertaking

(EEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 115)

2. Procedure ° Intervention ° Notification of the procedural documents to the interveners ° Derogation ° Confidential treatment

(EEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 116(2))

3. Applications for interim measures ° Conditions of admissibility ° Admissibility of the main action ° Main action not appearing prima facie inadmissible ° Admissibility

(EEC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

4. Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Suspension of the operation of a decision in a competition matter ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Definition ° Future and uncertain risk ° Excluded

(EEC Treaty, Arts 85, 86 and 185)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Costs ° Taxation ° Recoverable costs ° Concept ° Matters to be taken into consideration

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 92(1))

Summary

In the absence of Community provisions laying down fee scales, the Community judicature must, when proceeding to tax costs pursuant to Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, make an unfettered assessment of the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of Community law, as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the case for the agents or advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings, without taking into consideration any national scales of lawyers' fees or any agreement in relation to fees concluded between the party concerned and his agents or advisers.

Since the Court takes account, in fixing the recoverable costs, of all the circumstances of the case up to the date of its decision, there is no need to give a separate ruling on the costs incurred by the parties for the purposes of the taxation of costs.
12

The Court of First Instance observes that, under the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, which is applicable to the Court of First Instance pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 46 of that Statute, and Article 44(1 )(c) of the Rules of Procedure, an application is to state the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. The Court of First Instance considers that, irrespective of questions of terminology, the presentation of those matters must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to exercise its review. In order to ensure legal certainty and the proper administration of justice, if an action is to be admissible under the abovementioned provisions, the essential factual and legal elements upon which the action is based must be apparent, at the very least in summary form, but coherently and comprehensibly, from the application itself (see the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-347/88 Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I-4747, paragraph 28, and in Case C-52/90 Commission v Denmark [1991] ECR I-2187, paragraph 17 et seq.; see also the order of the Court of First Instance in Case T-85/92 De Hoe v Commission, cited above, paragraph 20).
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Suspension of operation of a decision imposing a fine ° Conditions for granting ° Provision of a security ° Permissibility ° Limits ° Recognition by the Commission that liability is shared between two undertakings belonging to a single group and announcement of an amendment to the decision taking into account that apportionment ° Reduction of the amount to be guaranteed

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 39, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

The judge hearing the application for interim measures should order the partial suspension of the obligation on the applicant undertaking to provide a bank guarantee for payment of the fine which has been imposed upon it if the undertaking has been informed by a letter from the relevant member of the Commission that the decision imposing that fine is to be amended and if, in addition, the conditions as regards a prima facie case and urgency for the suspension of operation may be considered to be fulfilled.

If the Commission intends to apportion the fine for infringement of the Treaty competition rules between that undertaking and another belonging to the same steel-producing group which has also participated in the anti-competitive conduct penalized, the requirement that the applicant undertaking provide a security covering the whole fine while awaiting the proposed amendment to the decision ceases to be justified insofar as that amount is disproportionate to the applicant' s position within the group where the infringements have been committed.