ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Officials – Competitions – Holding of an open competition – Languages of participation in tests – Limitation of the choice of second language – Discrimination based on language – Justification having regard to the interests of the service – Observance of the principle of proportionality

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 1d(1) and (6), 27 and 28(f) and Annex III, Art. 1(1)(f); Council Regulation No 1, Art. 1)

(see paras 36-42, 70, 71)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2021 –

Jareš Procházková et Jareš v EUIPO – Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)

(Case T‑656/18)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949 – Absence of a prior right acquired pursuant to national law – Article 52(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/04 (now Article 60(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU 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 – Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact not previously raised before the departments of EUIPO – Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see para. 16)

2. Action for annulment – Subject matter – Decision based on several pillars of reasoning, each sufficient to justify the operative part – Annulment of such a decision – Conditions (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 19)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Use of the mark capable of being prohibited by virtue of another earlier right – Review by the competent bodies of OHIM and by the Court as to the national law applicable – Scope (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 52(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 37) (see paras 24-27)

4. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Duty of diligence (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(1)) (see para. 63)

5. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Invalidity proceedings concerning relative grounds for refusal – OHIM examining evidence superficially or not taking certain elements into account – No infringement of Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(1)) (see para. 67)

6. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU – Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see paras 68-71)

7. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Use of the mark capable of being prohibited by virtue of another earlier right – Copyright – Figurative mark MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 52(2)(c)) (see paras 75-81, 85)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2018 (Case R 1159/2017-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Mrs Jareš Procházková and Mr Jareš and, on the other hand, Elton Hodinářská.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mrs Hana Jareš Procházková and Mr Antonín Jareš to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);
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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods or services (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 41, 46)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 September 2019 –

Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Dokkio (DOKKIO)

(Case T‑67/19)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark DOKKIO — Earlier EU figurative mark representing two diagonal lines followed by a vertical line and a circle — 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 19, 20)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (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 — Word mark DOKKIO — Figurative mark representing two diagonal lines followed by a vertical line and a circle (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37-41, 59, 60)

4. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO's previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 42)

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 — Irrelevant where no similarity between the marks concerned (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 58)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2018 (Case R 1187/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Sixsigma Networks Mexico and Dokkio.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 — Recognition of a certain degree of distinctiveness of a national mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33)
Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Global assessment of all the elements of the earlier design — Nature of the product incorporating a design — Effect

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Recital 14 and Arts 6(1), 25(1)(b) and 36(6))

(see paras 28, 29)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2020 –

Isigny — Sainte Mère v EUIPO (Shape of a golden container with a type of wave)

(Case T‑546/19)

(EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a golden container with a type of wave — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of distinctive character)

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 — Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Trade mark made up of several elements — Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark — Need to take account of the overall perception of the combination by the relevant public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 22)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24, 26-29)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark consisting of the shape of a golden container with a type of wave (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 37-48)

5. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paras 52-56)

6. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU — Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning — Whether permissible — Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence) (see paras 59-61)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2019 (Case R 1513/2018-5), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a golden container with a type of wave as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 –

Martínez Albainox v EUIPO – Taser International (TASER)

(Case T‑342/19)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark TASER – Earlier EU word marks TASER – Relative grounds for refusal – Detriment to reputation – Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(5) and 60(1)(a)) (see para. 23)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Condition – Link between the marks – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(5) and 60(1)(a)) (see paras 24-29, 37, 45)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence 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 – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(5) and 60(1)(a)) (see paras 30, 31)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 March 2019 (Case R 1576/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Taser International and Martínez Albainox.

Operative part of the judgment

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(1), first sentence)

(see paras 47-52)
EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Definition – Interpretation taking account of the rationale of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Recital 10, Art. 42(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 22(3))

(see para. 29)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 25 June 2020 –

Dermavita v EUIPO – Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM)

(Case T‑104/19)

(EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark JUVÉDERM – Genuine use of the mark – Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered – Use in the form in which the mark was registered – Use with the proprietor’s consent – Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Proof of use – Genuine use – Meaning – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1), first para.) (see paras 19-21)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Word mark JUVÉDERM (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)) (see paras 32, 33, 44, 53)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)) (see paras 37-39)

4. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Use by a third party with the consent of the trade mark proprietor (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(2)) (see paras 49, 50)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2018 (Case R 2630/2017-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Dermavita and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Dermavita Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);
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 – Earlier trade mark constituted by an EU trade mark – Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 31)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 October 2020 –

Dvectis CZ v EUIPO – Yado (Support pillow)

(Case T‑818/19)

(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered community design representing a support pillow – Earlier Community design – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – Informed user – Degree of freedom of the designer – No different overall impression – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Obligation to state reasons)

1. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Criteria for assessment – Freedom of the designer (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6 and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 46, 47)

2. Community designs – Application for registration – Conditions – Indication of the goods (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 36(2) and (6)) (see paras 30, 31)

3. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Representation of a support pillow (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 44, 52, 67-69)

4. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Informed user – Definition (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 41, 42)

5. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Global assessment of all the elements of the earlier design (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 54-56, 61, 62)

6. Community designs – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 62, first sentence) (see paras 73, 75)

7. Community designs – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Decision of an EUIPO body forming part of the context of the decision of the Board of Appeal (see para. 78)

8. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Plea based on absence or inadequacy of the statement of reasons – Plea alleging incorrectness of the statement of reasons – Distinction (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 81)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2019 (Case R 513/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Yado and Dvectis CZ.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judicial proceedings – Production of evidence – Time limit – Applicability to the evidence in rebuttal and the amplification of the offers of evidence submitted in response to evidence in rebuttal from the opposite party – Precluded

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 85(1) and (3) and 92(7))

(see para. 47)
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU Courts – Procedural role of EUIPO – Right of EUIPO, although designated as the defendant, to support the applicant’s claims – Functional independence of Boards of Appeal and their members

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 178(2) and (3))

(see para. 22)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 2020 –

Impera v EUIPO – Euro Games Technology (Flaming Forties)

(Case T‑874/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark Flaming Forties – Earlier national figurative mark 40 FLAMING FRUITS – 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 21, 76)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 23)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 32)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word mark Flaming Forties and figurative mark 40 FLAMING FRUITS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 44, 55, 57-59, 65, 71, 75, 81, 82)

5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 45, 46)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 (Case R 2304/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Euro Games Technology and Impera.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2021 –

Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO – Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA)

(Case T‑830/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA – Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Relevant public – Similarity of the goods and services – Similarity of the signs – Global assessment of the 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 29, 30, 57-60, 65, 66, 68)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33)

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 – Figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA and word and figurative marks 42 BELOW (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 38, 64, 92, 103)

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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 43-45, 86)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 2532/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bacardi & Co. and Palírna U Zeléného stromu.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;