ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Definition — Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 57(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 22(3))

(see paras 46-56, 61, 62)
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — Reference to elements in an annex — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21 and 53, 1st para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d), 171 and 177(1))

(see para. 11)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 September 2019 –

Daimler v EUIPO (ROAD EFFICIENCY)

(Case T‑749/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark ROAD EFFICIENCY — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — 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 distinctive character — Meaning — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 12-14)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Marks consisting of advertising slogans — Slogan with a fantasy character (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 15)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Marks consisting of advertising slogans — Laudatory promotional formula (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 34)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Word mark ROAD EFFICIENCY (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 32, 33, 39, 40, 43, 47)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2018 (Case R 2701/2017-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ROAD EFFICIENCY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1) and 94, first sentence)

(see paras 20-22)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 September 2019 –

US v ECB

(Case T‑255/18)

(Civil service — ECB staff — Fixed-term contract — Contract for an indefinite period — Refusal to reclassify a fixed term contract as a contract for an indefinite period — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

1. Officials — Staff of the European Central Bank — Conditions of employment — Compliance with EU directives on social policy — Specific obligations on the ECB — None (Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Art. 9(c); Council Directive 1999/70) (see paras 68, 69)

2. Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Measures to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term contracts — General right to contracts of indefinite duration after a certain number of renewals of fixed-term contracts — None (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 5) (see paras 71, 72)

3. Officials — Staff of the European Central Bank — Recruitment — Reclassification of a fixed term contract as a contract for an indefinite period — Administration's discretion — Limits (see para. 76)

4. Actions brought by officials — Staff of the European Central Bank — Plea of illegality — Scope — Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded — Bank guidelines concerning the annual salary and bonus review of agents — Included — Conditions (Art. 277 TFEU) (see paras 82-84)

5. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state reasons — Decision taken in a context known to the addressee — Consideration of the legal context (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 105, 106, 110)

6. Actions brought by officials — Pleas in law — Manifest error of assessment — Concept (see para. 111)

7. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (see para. 122)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and seeking, first, annulment of the ECB’s decision not to reclassify the applicant’s contract as a contract for an indefinite period and, secondly, compensation in respect of the harm which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
European Parliament — Rules on costs and indemnities of MEPs — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament — Complaint — Action by entities in the renewable energy sector opposing aid in favour of a nuclear power station — Lawfulness

(Art. 263 TFEU; Decision of the Bureau concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, Arts 68 and 72)

(see para. 38)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2019 –

Colombani v EEAS

(Case T‑372/18)

(Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2017 promotion year — Decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 14 — Article 43 and Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Consideration of comparative merits — Taking into account staff reports for the purpose of promotion — Purely literal assessments — No method enabling staff reports to be compared for the purpose of promotion)

1. Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Procedures — Administration’s discretion — Limits — Respect for the principle of equal treatment (see paras 30, 31)

2. Officials — Reports procedure — Staff reports — Purely literal assessments in those reports — Method not allowing merits to be compared on a basis of equality in a promotion procedure (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 43 and 45) (see paras 32-35, 43, 45)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 9 November 2017 (ADMIN(2017) 21) not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 14 in the 2017 promotion exercise.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 9 November 2017 (ADMIN(2017) 21) not to promote Mr Jean-Marc Colombani to Grade AD 14 in the 2017 promotion exercise;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 –

E.I. Papadopoulos v EUIPO — Europastry (fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre)

(Case T‑628/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union figurative mark fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre — Earlier EU figurative mark Caprice — 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 23, 50)

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 — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29-32)

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 — Criteria for assessment — Early mark occupying a distinctive independent position in the trade mark sought (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33-35)

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 — Figurative marks fripan VIENNOISERIE CAPRICE Pur Beurre and Caprice (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 44, 52, 76)

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 — High distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 62, 63)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2018 (Case R 493/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Viomichania mpiskoton kai eidon diatrofis E.I. Papadopoulos and Europastry.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 September 2019 –

France v Commission

(Case T‑507/18)

(EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenses incurred by France under the Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI) — Inaccurate accounting for certain consignments of bananas (financial years 2013 — 2016) — Flat-rate financial correction)

1. Agriculture — EAGF and EAFRD financing — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Shared by the Commission and the Member State (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 228/2013 and No 1308/2013; Commission Regulation No 1333/2011) (see paras 37, 38, 71)

2. Agriculture — EAGF and EAFRD financing — Principles — Obligations of the Member States — Adoption of monitoring and control measures — Finding of defects in the control system established by a Member State under the Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity — Scope of the obligation (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 228/2013 and No 1308/2013; Commission Regulations No 1333/2011 and No 180/2014) (see paras 63, 69, 70, 72, 74)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018 L 152, p. 29) in so far as it applies to the French Republic a financial correction of 5%, amounting to a total sum of EUR 1 945 435.39, as regards the measures entitled ‘Other Direct Aid — POSEI’, on the ground of ‘inaccurate accounting for certain consignments of bananas’ for the financial years 2013 — 2016.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2015/2436, Art. 4(1)(b); European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b) and (2)(a)(ii))

(see paras 33, 34, 36)
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 March 2020 –

Tecnodidattica v EUIPO (Shape of bases for globes and lamps)

(Case T‑752/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of bases for globes and lamps — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No decorative or imaginative elements playing an important or essential role)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Signs which consist exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Meaning — Interpretation in the light of the public interest underlying each of them (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 11, 12, 17)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Signs which consist exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result –Meaning — Presence of non-essential characteristics with no technical function — Not relevant to the ground for refusal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 13, 39)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Signs which consist exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Meaning — Existence of other shapes allowing the same technical result to be obtained — Not relevant to the ground for refusal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 14, 26, 31-33)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Signs which consist exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Identification of the essential characteristics of a sign (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 15, 16)

5. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Three-dimensional mark consisting of the shape of bases for globes and lamps (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7,(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 23, 24, 27, 41-43, 45)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Signs which consist exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Slavish copies of the product shape — Examination in the light of the rules relating to unfair competition (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see para. 44)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 October 2018 (Case R 76/2017-2), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of bases for globes and lamps as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 –

Japan Tobacco v EUIPO — I. J. Tobacco Industry (I. J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY)

(Case T‑743/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark I.J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY — Earlier EU figurative mark JTi — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para 27)

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 — Tobacco products (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 28)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks I. J. TOBACCO INDUSTRY and JTi (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 38, 42-45)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 (Case R 979/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Japan Tobacco and I. J. Tobacco Industry.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
4.

Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Freezing of funds — Rights of defence — Subsequent decision maintaining the name of the applicant on the list of persons covered by those measures — No new grounds — Council’s obligation to communicate to the person concerned the new evidence taken into account when periodically re-examining the restrictive measures — No communication of the new evidence to the person concerned so that he or she can submit his or her obligations — Infringement of the rights of the defence (Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282, Art. 9(2) and Annex II) (see paras 54-61, 64, 67)
EU law – Interpretation – Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – To be taken into consideration – Decisions based on the opinion of a scientific authority – Incorporation of those opinions into the statement of reasons for such decisions

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 726/2004, recital 23 and Arts 5(2), 10, 56(2) and 87(3))

(see paras 26-31)
Agriculture – EAGF and EAFRD financing – Support for rural development – Eligibility of operations and expenses – Setting eligibility criteria at national level – Obligation on the Member States to put in place a penalties scheme in the event of failure to fulfil obligations – Scope

(Council Regulations No 2988/95, Art. 2(1) and No 73/2009, Art. 21(1); Commission Regulation No 1122/2009, Art. 69)

(see paras 94, 95)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 34, 35, 102, 170)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 December 2020 –

Bawtry Carbon International v Commission

(Case T‑637/18)

(Non-contractual liability – Environment – Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures – Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) toxic substance and as an Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) toxic substance – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 54, 55)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Meaning – Classification method for aquatic environmental hazards – Precluded (Art. 340, second para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1272/2008, as amended by Regulations No 286/2011 and No 944/2013, Annex I, point 4.1.3.5.5) (see paras 58, 66-69)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law which leads to the imposition or strengthening of obligations on individuals so as to affect their legal situation (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 70, 71)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of EU law – Requirement that the institutions manifestly and seriously disregard the limits of their discretion – Breach by the Commission of a rule affording it some discretion when classifying chemical substances and mixtures – Highly complex scientific situation – No sufficiently serious breach (Art. 340, second para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1272/2008, as amended by Regulations No 286/2011 and No 944/2013, Annex I, point 4.1.3.5.5) (see paras 80-116)

Re:

Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), in so far as that regulation classified pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Bawtry Carbon International Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;
Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela – Freezing of funds of persons responsible for serious violations of human rights or undermining the rule of law – Minimum requirements

(Art. 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c); Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2018/90, Annex I; Council Regulations No 2017/2063, Annex IV and No 2018/88)

(see paras 32-35)
Judicial proceedings – Intervention – Objection of inadmissibility not raised by the defendant – Inadmissibility – Absolute bar to proceeding – To be considered of the Court’s own motion

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, fourth para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 129 and 142(3))

(see para. 32)