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

Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO – Pfizer (RUXYMLA)

(Case T‑248/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark RUXYMLA – Earlier EU word mark RUXIMERA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – 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 22, 23, 53)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 58)

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 – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 27)

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 of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 40)

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 – Word marks RUXYMLA and RUXIMERA (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 54-57, 59)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2020 (Case R 1878/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pfizer and Stada Arzneimittel.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Limitation of the list of products and services after the decision of the Board of Appeal – Consequences

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 49(1))

(see paras 23, 24)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 November 2021 –

Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO – Amigüitos pets & life (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect)

(Case T‑616/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect – Earlier EU word mark ONE – Relative grounds for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court – Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Res judicata)

1. Action for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Obligation to implement – Scope – Both the operative part and the grounds of the judgment to be taken into account (Art. 266 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(6)) (see paras 36, 37)

2. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see para. 48)

3. Judicial proceedings – Res judicata – Scope (see para. 51)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 July 2020 (Case R 424/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Société des produits Nestlé and Amigüitos pets & life.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 July 2020 (Case R 424/2020-5);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Société des produits Nestlé SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU 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 MASTIHACARE

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3))

(see paras 40-44, 46, 52)
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Overlap of the scope of the grounds set out in Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c))

(see paras 75, 77)
2.

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures directed against the Democratic Republic of the Congo – Freezing of funds of persons undermining the rule of law or contributing to the commission of acts that constitute serious human rights violations – Obligation to identify in the statement of reasons individual and specific reasons justifying such measures – Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him or her to understand the scope of the measure taken against him or her (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109, Annex II; Council Regulations No 1183/2005 and No 2019/2101, Annex) (see paras 53, 59-64, 66)
EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of the commercial interests of a third party – Refusal of access due to incorrect determination of the subject matter of the application – Possibility of granting partial access to documents

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), first indent)

(see paras 36, 37, 49)
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Examination of the grounds for refusal having regard 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 44-47)
Actions brought by officials – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Annulment of a hypothetical act which has not yet been adopted – Not included

(Art. 270 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 50a)

(see paras 42-44)
European Parliament – Members – Payment of expenses and allowances – Parliamentary assistance allowances – Check relating to the use of parliamentary assistance expenses – Burden of proof

(Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament concerning implementing measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament, Art. 33(1) and (2))

(see paras 37, 38)
3.

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine – Decision to freeze funds – Adopted or maintained on the basis of a judicial procedure carried out by the authorities of a third State concerning the misappropriation of public funds or abuse of office by a public office-holder – Conditions – National decision adopted in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection – Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the grounds relied on against the persons or entities concerned are well founded – Council’s obligation to verify observance of the rights in question – Infringement (Decision 2014/119/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2020/373, Annex; Council Regulation Nos 208/2014, Annex I, and 2020/370) (see paras 86, 88-97, 99-105, 126)
2.

EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Mark which has become, in consequence of acts or inactivity of its proprietor, a common name in the trade – Assessment in the light of the perception of the sign by the relevant classes of persons (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(b)) (see paras 34-38)
66

Consequently, it should be noted that the selection board in the competition at issue adopted a weighting factor for each element of the oral test specified in the notice of that competition (‘the weighting factors at issue’). The weighting factors at issue were applied to the selection board’s assessments of the candidates’ performance in those elements in order to obtain a weighted average of those three assessments. Those weighting factors therefore contribute substantially to the understanding which the applicant may have of the way in which her performance, after having been assessed in those three elements, was converted into an overall numerical mark out of 20, in accordance with the notice of the competition at issue (see paragraph 6 above). The applicant now has the first and second conversion grids. However, without knowing the weighting factors at issue, the applicant is not in a position to understand how the verbal ratings of ‘strong’, ‘strong’ and ‘good’ awarded to her for the three elements of the oral test and which, according to the first conversion grid, correspond to numerical marks of 7, 7 and 6, could have resulted in an overall mark of 13/20 corresponding, according to the second conversion grid, to the verbal rating of ‘good’. It must be pointed out that, depending on the size of each of those factors, it is possible that the weighted average of those numerical marks might result in an overall numerical mark, rounded and converted into a mark out of 20, reaching the 14/20 threshold required for a candidate to be included among the successful candidates in the competition at issue (see paragraph 9 above).
142

The only factual evidence relied on by the applicant is an email from the Head of Division of the EEAS for CFSP mission staff. However, first, the decision to propose to the applicant a renewal of the contract at issue during the transition period fell within the competence of the Head of Mission and not of a Head of Division of the EEAS. Secondly, the email does not allow the applicant to be considered to have received specific assurances that the contract at issue would be renewed during the transition period. On the contrary, in that email, the Head of Division of the EEAS for Personnel of CFSP Missions clearly indicated that the continuation of seconded or contracted United Kingdom nationals in such missions would be subject to an assessment of the interest of the service by the Heads of Mission. Accordingly, it cannot be considered that the applicant received specific assurances, within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 140 above, that the contract at issue would be renewed during the transition period.
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 February 2022 –

Maternus v EUIPO – adp Gauselmann (WILD)

(Case T‑116/21)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark WILD – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign – Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c), and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 20, 50)

2. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence) (see para. 21)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Word mark WILD (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c), and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 27, 36, 41, 46, 53, 54, 58)

4. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009 – Relevant date for the examination of an absolute ground for nullity – Date of lodging the application for registration (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7 and 52(1)(a)) (see para. 38)

5. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Concept of characteristic (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c), and 52(1)(a)) (see para. 45)

6. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Existence of other signs or indications to designate the same characteristics – Irrelevant (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c), and 52(1)(a)) (see para. 47)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2020 (Case R 932/2019-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Maternus.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 January 2022 –

Estetica Group Iwona Michalak v EUIPO (PURE BEAUTY)

(Case T‑270/21)

(EU trade mark – Application for the EU figurative mark PURE BEAUTY – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of 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 – Definition – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20-23)

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 – Distinctive character – Application of specific criteria for assessment – Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

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 25-27)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Figurative mark PURE BEAUTY (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 29-36)

5. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – 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. 39)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2021 (Case R 1456/2020-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign PURE BEAUTY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it – Precluded

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188)

(see para. 19)
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. 20)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2022 –

Saure v Commission

(Case T‑506/21) ( 1 )

(Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Contracts concluded by the Commission on behalf of the Member States for the delivery of COVID-19 vaccines – Invitation emails to meetings of the Steering Committee – Partial refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual – The transmission of personal data is not necessary for a specific purpose in the public interest – Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725)

EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of privacy and integrity of the individual – Applicability of all of the provisions of Regulation No 2018/1725 – Obligation on the applicant to demonstrate the need to communicate the personal data in question – Scope

(European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b), and 2018/1725, Art. 9(1)(b))

(see paras 21-26, 41)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Hans-Wilhelm Saure to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 412, 11.10.2021.
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Overlap of the scope of the grounds set out in Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c))

(see para. 46)
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU

(Art. 296 TFEU; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)

(see para. 21)
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 – 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. 19)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Revision of a judgment ° Conditions for admissibility of an application for revision ° New fact ° Fact known before delivery of the contested judgment ° Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice (EEC), Arts 41 and 46)

Summary

It is clear from the first paragraph of Article 41 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, which was made applicable to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by the first paragraph of Article 46 thereof, that revision is not an appeal procedure but an exceptional review procedure that allows an applicant to call in question the authority of res judicata attaching to a final judgment on the basis of the findings of fact relied upon by the Court. Revision presupposes the discovery of elements of a factual nature which existed prior to the judgment and which were unknown at that time to the court which delivered it as well as to the party applying for revision and which, had the court been able to take them into consideration, could have led it to a different determination of the proceedings.

It follows that an application for revision based on a fact known to the party claiming revision before judgment was delivered is inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1.Officials - Actions - Interest in bringing an action - Decision on contingent pension rights

( Staff regulations, Art . 91 )

2.Officials - Actions - Act adversely affecting an official - Criteria - Statement of reasons on which the act is based

( Staff regulations, Arts 90 and 91 )

3.Officials - Actions - Act adversely affecting an official - Concept - Preparatory act - Exclusion

( Staff regulations, Arts 90 and 91 )

4.Officials - Actions - Prior complaint - Prescribed periods - Mandatory nature

( Staff regulations, Arts 90 and 91 )

Summary

1.Although it is true that before retirement, an uncertain future event, pension rights are contingent rights accruing from day to day, it is none the less clear that an administrative act deciding that a period of employment cannot be taken into account for the calculation of years of pensionable service, or a decision refusing a request for application of the increase provided for under Article 5 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, immediately and directly affects the legal situation of the person concerned, even if that act is to be implemented only subsequently . In principle, therefore, the official has a legitimate, present and vested interest in taking proceedings against such an act .

2.Within the framework of a continuing discussion between an institution and an official, the latter is entitled not to regard an exchange of views as a formal decision on the part of the administration until he receives the first letter from the administration stating the grounds on which that decision is based . Only at that time does he become bound to lodge a complaint within the period laid down by the Staff Regulations .

3.An application is inadmissible if it is directed against an act preparatory to a decision, in particular against an act coming within the category of administrative information, on the ground that it refers to the subsequent adoption of a decision or does not emanate from an appointing authority .

A letter addressed to an official is not in the nature of a decision where, in particular, the author of that letter took care expressly to draw the applicant' s attention to the fact that the pension calculations communicated to him were for guidance and had to be subject to subsequent confirmation .

4.The time-limits prescribed in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for the lodging of complaints and appeals are a matter of public policy and are not subject to the discretion of the parties or the court, since they were laid down with a view to ensuring clarity and legal certainty .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Costs ° Dispute concerning recoverable costs ° Concept ° Application seeking to dispute an order to pay costs ° Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 92(1))

Summary

An application by which the applicant does not seek a decision from the Court of First Instance concerning a dispute between him and the defendant regarding the amount or the calculation of costs which he has been ordered to pay, but seeks to have that order varied in his favour or revoked, does not constitute a dispute concerning costs to be recovered. Such an application is, therefore, inadmissible.