ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
5

The procedure for designation, as laid down in Article 5 of Regulation No 141/2000, is as follows: ‘1. In order to obtain the designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product, the sponsor shall submit an application to the [European Medicines] Agency at any stage of the development of the medicinal product before the application for marketing authorisation is made. … 4. The Agency shall verify the validity of the application and prepare a summary report to the Committee [for Orphan Medicinal Products]. Where appropriate, it may request the sponsor to supplement the particulars and documents accompanying the application. 5. The Agency shall ensure that an opinion is given by the Committee within 90 days of the receipt of a valid application. … 8. The Agency shall forthwith forward the final opinion of the Committee to the Commission, which shall adopt a decision within 30 days of receipt of the opinion. … The decision shall be notified to the sponsor and communicated to the Agency and to the competent authorities of the Member States. 9. The designated medicinal product shall be entered in the Community Register of Orphan Medicinal Products. … 12. A designated orphan medicinal product shall be removed from the Community Register of Orphan Medicinal Products: (a) at the request of the sponsor; (b) if it is established before the market authorisation is granted that the criteria laid down in Article 3 are no longer met in respect of the medicinal product concerned; (c) at the end of the period of market exclusivity as laid down in Article 8.’
27

According to the contested decision, the objective of the proposed ECI, which is to introduce into EU legislation the principle of the ‘state of necessity’, as conceived by the applicant, manifestly falls outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. In the words of the contested decision, ‘after a detailed examination of the Treaty provisions mentioned in [the] proposal (Articles 119 [TFEU] to 144 TFEU) and of all other possible legal bases, the Commission refuses to register the proposed citizens’ initiative on the ground that it manifestly falls outside the framework of its powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties’. In the contested decision, the Commission stated that, ‘[i]n particular, Article 136(1) TFEU may serve as a legal basis only for measures the sole purpose of which is to strengthen the budgetary discipline of the Member States and to ensure the proper functioning of economic and monetary union’. It added that, ‘[i]n any event, Article 136(1) TFEU confers no power on the Union … to take the place of the Member States in the exercise of their budgetary sovereignty or in carrying out functions which are related to State income and expenditure’.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

23 January 2014

European Commission

v

BO

‛Appeal — Civil service — Contract staff — Social security — Reimbursement of transport costs — Transport costs incurred for linguistic reasons — Article 19(2) of the Joint rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities — Point 2.5 of Chapter 12 of Title II of the general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical costs’

Appeal:

against the judgment delivered by the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) on 15 January 2013 in Case F‑27/11 BO v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. The European Commission is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by BO in the context of the present proceedings.

Summary

Officials — Social security — Sickness insurance — Transport costs incurred for linguistic reasons — Reimbursement — Not included — Reimbursement of transport costs associated with medical treatment requiring the use of a language in which the person receiving the treatment is fluent — Lawfulness — Conditions

(Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Art. 19)

It follows from Article 19 of the Joint rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities and from point 2.5 of Chapter 12 of Title II of the general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical costs that the payment of medical expenses by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the institutions of the European Union does not create a subsequent entitlement to the payment of corresponding transport costs.

Consequently, where transport costs appear to have been incurred as a result of a choice — albeit in accordance with the principle of freedom to choose practitioners provided for in Article 19 of those Joint rules — reflecting the preference of the beneficiary under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme to use the services of a practitioner or a treatment in a language in which they are fluent, whereas the language in question is not an integral component of the treatment and the care required is accessible at the beneficiary’s place of residence or employment, the exclusively linguistic grounds which governed the choice of practitioner preclude the payment of corresponding transport or accompanying adult’s costs.

The same is not true, however, where transport costs are not incurred for reasons of personal choice, but are essential to enable the beneficiary to follow a course of treatment or receive care which is not accessible at his place of residence or employment, provided that the language in which the treatment or care in question is administered constitutes an essential condition for it. That applies where the use of a language spoken by the beneficiary is integral to and indissociably associated with the treatment itself, particularly in the context of child psychotherapy.

(see paras 37-41)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 16)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 — Inadmissibility (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 17)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 18-20)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark BigXtra (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22-36)

6. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 52)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2012 (Case R 2521/2011-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign BigXtra as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FTI Touristik GmbH to pay the costs.
1.

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the various grounds for refusal — Interpretation of the grounds for refusal in the light of the public interest underlying each of them (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 19)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14-17)

2. Community 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 para. 18)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 42, 43)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Signs constituted by a motif applied to the surface of a product — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 41)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2012 (Case R 174/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Künzli SwissSchuh AG and K-Swiss, Inc.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders K-Swiss, Inc. to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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, 85)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 — Trade mark constituted by the juxtaposition of an element and another mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25‑27, 33, 39, 40, 53, 62, 63)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 45)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 holzmichel and figurative marks Michel and Michel POWER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 86-93)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2013 (Case R 1968/2011‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Rivella International AG and Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2014 —

Evonik Oil Additives v OHIM — BRB International (VISCOTECH)

(Case T‑138/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VISCOTECH — Earlier national and international word marks VISCOPLEX — Evidence of the territorial extent and validity of an earlier international trade mark — Rule 19(2) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) 2868/95 — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 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 33, 34, 78)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 50, 55, 56)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 63, 64)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 VISCOTECH and VISCOPLEX (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 79-83)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 December 2012 (Case R 907/2012‑5), relating to opposition proceedings between Evonik Degussa GmbH and BRB International BV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2014 —

Max Mara Fashion Group v OHIM — Mackays Stores (M&Co.)

(Case T‑272/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark M&Co. — Earlier Community and national figurative marks MAX&Co. — Earlier national word mark MAX&CO. — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. 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; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 17-19)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 24-27, 55)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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. 28)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 32, 33)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 M&Co. — Figurative and word marks MAX&CO. (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49-54, 59)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2013 (Case R 1199/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Max Mara Fashion Group Srl and Mackays Stores Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Dismissal of an action on the merits without ruling on admissibility — Discretion of the Courts of the Union (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 23)

2. European Parliament — Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Parliamentary allowances — Application of the provisions of Regulation No 966/2012 as a lex specialis in relation to the procedure laid down by the legislation concerning the expenses and allowances of MEPs (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Arts 78 and 79; European Parliament Decision 2005/684) (see paras 27-31)

3. European Parliament — Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members — Parliamentary assistance allowances — Lack of documents to evidence use in accordance with rules — Obligation to repay — Conditions for granting the allowance met at the time of the application — No effect (see paras 45, 46, 49, 54)

4. European Parliament — Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Request for reimbursement in the form of a debit note — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Criteria for assessment (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1)) (see paras 81-84, 88)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of (i) the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 4 July 2013 concerning the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 107 694.72 and of (ii) the related debit note of 5 July 2013.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2015 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Blue Coat Systems (BLUECO)

(Case T‑685/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BLUECO — Earlier Community word mark BLUE COAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 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 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 18, 39, 45, 46)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before OHIM bodies — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 21)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 BLUECO and BLUE COAT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-27, 53-56)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Relevance (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 50)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 2028/2012-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Blue Coat Systems, Inc. and Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM (REHABILITATE)

(Case T‑712/13)

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

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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))

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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))

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 REHABILITATE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c))

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (Council Regulation No 207/2009)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 October 2013 (Case R 609/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign REHABILITATE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;