ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 March 2020 –

Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Jokers WILD Casino)

(Case T‑321/19)

(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark Jokers WILD Casino — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No genuine use of the trade mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001)

1. 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 — 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 15-17)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Plea alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons — Plea alleging incorrectness of the statement of reasons — Distinction (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 18)

3. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use — Genuine use — Definition — Assessment criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 58(1)(a)) (see paras 31-36, 43)

4. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Figurative mark Jokers WILD Casino (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 58(1)(a)) (see paras 42, 44, 49, 50, 52, 53)

5. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use — Probative value of the evidence — Assessment criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 97(1)(f)) (see paras 45, 46)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2019 (Case R 803/2018-1), relating to revocation proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Maternus.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product or service – Concept

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

(see paras 20, 22, 23, 35)
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 May 2020 –

Cognac Ferrand v EUIPO (Shape of braiding on a bottle)

(Case T‑172/19)

(EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of braiding on a bottle — 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 — Concept (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

2. 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 22, 23)

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 24-27, 38-40, 52, 59)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Three-dimensional trade mark consisting of the shape of braiding on a bottle (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 53, 55-58, 60, 61, 63)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2019 (Case R 1640/2018-2) relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign constituted by the shape of braiding on a bottle 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 – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Definition

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

(see paras 24, 36, 41)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 23 September 2020 – Brillux v EUIPO – Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe)

(Case T‑402/19)

EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark Freude an Farbe – Earlier EU figurative mark Glemadur Freude an Farbe – 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 – Figurative marks Freude an Farbe and Glemadur Freude an Farbe (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27-31, 46, 51, 52, 60-67, 71)

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 34-36)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2019 (Case R 1434/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Synthesa Chemie and Brillux.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes – Reductions and exclusions where the rules on cross-compliance are not observed – Financial correction imposed on a Member State with a deficient control system – Basis of calculation – Farmers not subject to a check – Included – No breach of principle of proportionality

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1306/2013, Art. 52; Council Regulations No 1290/2005, Art. 31, and No 73/2009; Commission Regulation No 1122/2009, Arts 50 and 51)

(see paras 72-77, 80-82)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 18 November 2020 –

Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO – Dermavita (JUVEDERM ULTRA)

(Case T‑664/19)

(EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark JUVEDERM ULTRA – Genuine use of the mark – Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered – 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 – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Proof of use – Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51) (see para. 18)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Word mark JUVEDERM ULTRA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)(a)) (see paras 19, 20)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 (Joined Cases R 1655/2018-4 and R 1723/2018-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Dermavita Co. and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 October 2020 –

nanoPET Pharma v EUIPO – Miltenyi Biotec (viscover)

(Case T‑264/19)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark viscover – Absence of bad faith – Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001) – Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(2)(c) of Regulation 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 – Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies – Precluded (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see para. 19)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when lodging the trade mark application – Criteria for assessment – Taking into account of all relevant factors at the time of filing the application for registration – Applicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar sign – Intention of the applicant – Degree of legal protection of the signs at issue – Commercial logic underlying the registration of the contested sign as an EU trade mark – Chronology of events characterising the filing of the trade mark application – Origin of the sign at issue and its use since its creation (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 32-39)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when lodging the trade mark application – Figurative mark viscover (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 64, 65, 72, 84, 94)

4. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Invalidity action based on the existence of an earlier national right – Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 53(2)(c); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 37) (see para. 93)

5. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Examination of the application – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Probative value of the evidence – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 57(2) and (3)) (see para. 97)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2019 (Case R 1288/2017-5), concerning invalidity proceedings between nanoPET Pharma and Miltenyi Biotec.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

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

(see para. 25)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 December 2020 –

GV v Commission

(Case T‑705/19)

(Civil service – Officials – Psychological harassment – Request for assistance – Rejection of the request – Interests of the service – Equivalence of posts – Reasonable period – Absence of prima facie evidence – Responsibility)

1. Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Effect – Disputed measure referred to the Court – Exception – Decision not confirmatory in character (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 27)

2. Officials – Obligation of administration to provide assistance – Scope – Scope – Judicial review – Limits (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 12a(3) and 24) (see paras 33, 65, 67, 76, 81, 82, 135, 138)

3. Actions brought by officials – Prior administrative complaint – Time limits – Mandatory – Time-barred – Re-opening by a request for assistance – Precluded (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 24, 90 and 91) (see paras 42, 43)

4. Actions brought by officials – Pleas in law – Plea alleging psychological harassment – Obligation to take into account the relevant factual context as a whole (see para. 44)

5. Officials – Psychological harassment – Definition – Conduct intended to discredit the person concerned or to impair his or her working conditions or having that effect – Requirement that conduct must be repetitive – Requirement that conduct must be intentional – Scope – No requirement that harasser should have malicious intent (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 12a(3)) (see paras 77-79)

6. Officials – Psychological harassment – Burden of proof – Obligation for the party concerned to provide prima facie evidence (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 12a(3)) (see para. 80)

7. Officials – Organization of departments – Assignment of staff – Administration’s discretion – Freedom to organise administrative units – Scope (see para. 120)

8. Officials – Psychological harassment – Definition – Administrative decisions and disagreements with the administration on questions related to the organisation of the services – Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 12a(3)) (see para. 121)

9. Officials – Organization of departments – Assignment of staff – Reassignment – Compliance with the rule on correspondence between grade and post – Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 126)

10. 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 (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 148)

11. Actions brought by officials – Purpose – Directions to the administration – Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 155)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Commission of 5 February 2019 rejecting the applicant's request for assistance and, second, compensation for the physical and psychological harm that the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 2020 –

Alkemie Group v EUIPO – Mann & Schröder (ALKEMIE)

(Case T‑859/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark ALKEMIE – Earlier EU word mark Alkmene – 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 17, 18, 52)

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. 19)

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 of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

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 marks ALKEMIE and Alkmene (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56, 59-62, 65)

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 – Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities – Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 57)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 (Case R 2230/2018-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Mann & Schröder and Alkemie Group.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 September 2019 (Case R 2230/2018-2) to the extent that it dismissed the action of Alkemie Group sp. z o.o in respect of ‘dietary aids’ in Class 5;

2. Dismisses the action for the remainder;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 March 2021 –

FI v Commission

(Case T‑694/19)

(Civil service – Officials – Surviving spouse – Survivor’s pension – Articles 18, 19 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations – Conditions for eligibility – Duration of the marriage – Plea of illegality – Equal treatment – Proportionality)

1. Actions brought by officials – Action for the annulment of a confirmatory decision – Inadmissibility – Condition – Confirmed decision to have become final (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see paras 24-27)

2. Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Admissibility – Obligation to rule on pleas directed against the decision rejecting the complaint – Pleas devoid of independent content or purely confirmatory decision – None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 28, 29)

3. Officials – Equal treatment – Definition – comparability of the situations at issue – Criteria for assessment (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 20, 21(1) and 52(1)) (see paras 42-47)

4. Officials – Pensions – Pension for surviving spouse – Conditions for granting – Discretion of the EU legislature – Judicial review – Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VIII, Arts 19 and 20) (see para. 48)

5. Officials – Pensions – Pension for surviving spouse – Conditions for granting – Minimum duration of marriage – Different treatment of surviving spouses depending on whether they were married before or after the deceased official left the service – Condition resulting in a disadvantage for those who married after the official became disabled – Breach of the principle of equal treatment – Justification – Combating fraud – None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VIII, Arts 18, 19 and 20) (see paras 50-59, 62-66, 71-76, 80-83)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 8 March 2019 and 1 April 2019 rejecting the application for the award of a survivor’s pension to the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decisions of the European Commission of 8 March 2019 and 1 April 2019 rejecting the application for the award of a survivor’s pension to FI;

2. Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by FI;
2.

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision of the Directorate-General for Finances of the European Parliament concerning the change in the amount of the pension of a former Member of the European Parliament – Change carried out in application of the identical pension rule and relevant national rules – No margin of discretion as to the method of calculating that pension – No obligation to carry out a detailed verification of the compatibility of the relevant national rules with the general principles and other provisions of EU law (Art. 296, second para. TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c); Decision of the European Parliament on implementing measures for the Statute for Members, Art. 75; Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, Annex III, Art. 2(1)) (see paras 59, 60, 66-70)
Judicial proceedings – Objection of inadmissibility – Power of the General Court to dismiss an action on the merits without ruling on the objection of inadmissibility – Extent of its discretion

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 126 and 130)

(see paras 42, 43)
10.

European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures directed against the Democratic Republic of the Congo – Scope of the review – Restricted review for general rules – Criteria for adopting restrictive measures – Involvement in planning, directing or committing acts that constitute serious human rights violations – Obstruction of a consensual and peaceful crisis exist strategy aimed at holding elections, in particular by acts of violence, repression, incitement to violence, or by undermining the rule of law – Scope – Compliance with the principle of legal certainty requiring clarity, precision and foreseeability of the effects of legal rules (Arts 3(5) and 21(2)(b) and (c) TEU; Art. 275, second para. TFEU; Council Decisions 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940, Art. 3(2)(b) and (CFSP) 2016/2231, Recitals 3 and 4; Council Regulation No 1183/2005) (see paras 170, 171, 173-180)
EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Facts, evidence and observations submitted in support of the opposition – Opportunity for the opposing party to adduce evidence in support of the opposition

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 19(1) and (2)(c))

(see para. 92)
State aid – Administrative procedure – Obligations of the Commission – Diligent and impartial examination – Account taken of the most complete and reliable information possible – Scope of the obligation – Principle of sound administration – Infringement – None

(Art. 108(2) TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41)

(see paras 168-171)
Fundamental rights – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to sound administration – Requirement of impartiality – Concept – Presumption until proof to the contrary is adduced

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1))

(see paras 107, 110)
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Separate examination of the various grounds for refusal – Interpretation of the grounds for refusal in the light of the public interest underlying each of them – Use of a relevant criterion in the context of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 in the interpretation of subparagraph (b) of that provision – Not permissible

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

(see paras 45-48)
EU budget – Financial regulation – Administrative penalties which may be imposed by the Commission – Exclusion of an operator from a public procurement procedure – Compliance with the principle of proportionality in determining the penalty imposed on the operator

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, as amended by Regulation No 2015/1929, Art. 106(3))

(see para. 80)