ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 —

Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

(Case T‑452/14)

‛Medicinal products for human use — Orphan medicinal products — Marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Cholic Acid FGK (renamed Kolbam) — Therapeutic indications — Market exclusivity — Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures capable of affecting a given legal position — Action directed only against the reasoning of a measure — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para.51)

2. 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, Art. 3) (see paras 56, 57, 60-62)

3. Approximation of laws — Uniform legislation — Medicinal products for human use — Orphan medicinal products — Medicinal products similar to an orphan medicinal product already authorised and having the same therapeutic indication — Placing on the market — Market exclusivity — Obligation to ensure effectiveness — Commission’s grant of marketing authorisation drafted in such a way as to encourage a doctor to prescribe a medicinal product for therapeutic indications other than those authorised — Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 141/2000, Art. 8(1); European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Art. 87(2)) (see paras 80-82, 88, 95, 97, 134)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 2375 of 4 April 2014 granting, in exceptional circumstances, marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Cholic Acid FGK — cholic acid’, an orphan medicinal product for human use, as amended by Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 6508 of 11 September 2014 transferring and amending the marketing authorisation granted in exceptional circumstances by Decision C(2014) 2375 for ‘Kolbam — cholic acid’, an orphan medicinal product for human use, in so far as that decision in substance indicates that that medicinal product is authorised for the therapeutic indications for Orphacol or, in the alternative, for annulment of Article 1 of that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 2375 of 4 April 2014 granting, in exceptional circumstances, marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Cholic Acid FGK — cholic acid’, an orphan medicinal product for human use, as amended by Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 6508 of 11 September 2014 transferring and amending the marketing authorisation granted in exceptional circumstances by Decision C(2014) 2375 for ‘Kolbam — cholic acid’, an orphan medicinal product for human use;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Laboratoires CTRS;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Figurative mark BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-18, 24)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), and 75) (see para. 19)

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 para. 22)

5. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Misuse of powers — Concept (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 26)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2014 (Case R 120/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 14)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 15)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Figurative mark BIO organic (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-18, 20, 24)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), and 75) (see para. 19)

5. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Misuse of powers — Concept (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 26)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 (Case R 301/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO organic as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs.
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 9-12)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark ULTIMATE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 13, 19, 22)

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 — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2014 (Case R 1787/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ULTIMATE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Volkswagen AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
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 16-19, 42)

2. Community 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 — Word marks SEQUOIA CAPITAL and SEQUOIA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 22, 23, 34, 43)

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. 24)

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 36, 37)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2014 (Case R 1457/2013-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Sequoia Capital LLP and Sequoia Capital Operations LLC.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Sequoia Capital Operations LLC to pay the costs.
Under the principle of equal treatment of tenderers, the aim of which is to promote the development of healthy and effective competition between undertakings taking part in a public procurement procedure, all tenderers must be afforded equality of opportunity when formulating their tenders, which therefore implies that the tenders of all competitors must be subject to the same conditions. Tenderers must therefore be in a position of equality both when they formulate their tenders and when those tenders are being assessed by the contracting authority. The latter is required to comply, at each stage of the procedure, with the principle of equal treatment and, in consequence, with the principle of equality of opportunity for all tenderers. The contracting authority must, to that end, check that the tenders comply with the requirements of the contract and may not accept a tender and sign a contract if it has, or ought reasonably to have, grounds for believing that the tender which is under examination or has already been accepted does not comply with the requirements of the contract.

In the case of a tender lodged by a broker, acting as a single tenderer instructed by insurance companies, the submission of such a tender has different implications, in terms of checking whether the tender is in order, from those flowing from a tender submitted by an insurance company acting as a single tenderer. Nonetheless, in both cases, the contracting authority is under the obligation to satisfy itself that the tender complies with the contract documents. Consequently, the contracting authority must be able to be in a position to carry out that task.

Therefore, where assessment of the selection criteria, of which the economic and financial criteria form part, has been carried out exclusively having regard to the situation of the broker, and not that of the represented insurance companies, the contracting authority infringes the principle of equal treatment of tenderers. Permitting a broker to participate in a call for tenders as a single tenderer instructed by a number of insurance companies, first, makes the assessment by the evaluation committee illusory when it examines the merits of a tender in relation to the conditions set out in the contract documents; secondly, in some circumstances, gives that broker a competitive advantage over the other tenderers; and, thirdly, entails unequal treatment in favour of the tenderer-broker in relation to, in particular, a competitor who submits a joint tender together with one or more insurers.

(see paras 64, 65, 80, 87, 88, 99, 102)
3.

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 para. 30)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 2015 —

Sephora v OHIM — Mayfield Trading (Representation of two undulating vertical lines)

(Case T‑320/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark representing two undulating vertical lines — National and international figurative marks representing an undulating vertical line — Absolute ground 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 17)

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 18, 19)

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 — Figurative mark representing two undulating vertical lines and figurative marks representing one undulating vertical line (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 41, 46, 53, 54, 65)

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 — High distinctiveness of the earlier mark — Irrelevant where no similarity between the marks concerned (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 60, 61)

5. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 69)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2014 (Case R 1577/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sephora and Mayfield Trading Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2015 —

Promarc Technics v OHIM — PIS (Part of door)

(Case T‑251/14)

‛Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing part of a door — Earlier international design consisting of an American patent — Ground of invalidity — No individual character — No different overall impression — Evidence that the earlier design was made available to the public — Circles specialised in the sector concerned — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Article 6, Article 7(1) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002’

1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 6/2002, fourteenth recital and Art. 6(1)(b), and (2)) (see paras 38-40)

3. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Informed user — Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1)(b), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 43)

4. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Criteria for assessment — Creative licence (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 51, 52)

5. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not producing on the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Representation of part of a door (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1)(b), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 55-58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 January 2014 (Case R 1464/2012-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Petrycki i Sorys sp.j. (PIS) and Promarc Technics s.c. Tomasz Pokrywa, Rafał Natorski.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 —

Infusion Brands v OHIM (DUALSAW)

(Case T‑647/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark DUALSAW — Absolute grounds for refusal — Partial refusal of registration — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (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)) (see para. 16)

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)) (see paras 17-19)

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 — Figurative mark DUALSAW (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20-24, 27, 30, 34)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 32, 33)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 para. 36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2014 (Case R 397/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign DUALSAW as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
6.

Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Single payment scheme — Calculation of the reference amount — Right to payment from the national reserve — Farmers in a special situation — Farmers having made investments — Discretion of the Member States — Scope — Limits — Obligation to maintain a correlation between the value of the rights allocated and the number of hectares acquired by the farmer as an investment (Council Regulation No 1782/2003, Art. 42(4); Commission Regulation No 795/2004, Arts 6(5) and 21(1)) (see paras 93-96)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 —

Omega International v OHIM (Representation of a white circle and a white rectangle inside a black rectangle)

(Case T‑695/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing a white circle and a white rectangle inside a black rectangle — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Amendment of a decision by the Office — Assessment having regard to the competences conferred on the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see paras 10, 11)

2. 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 — Recognition of the distinctiveness of the sign not subject to a finding of a certain level of creativity or linguistic or artistic imagination (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14-17, 35)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Sign composed of a basic geometric figure (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

4. 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 — Perception of the sign by the relevant public– Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 47, 48, 52)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark representing a white circle and a white rectangle inside a black rectangle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 49, 59)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 July 2014 (Case R 1037/2014-5) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a white circle and a white rectangle inside a black rectangle as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;