ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 –

Mahr v EUIPO — Especialidades Vira (Xocolat)

(Case T‑58/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Xocolat — Earlier EU word mark LUXOCOLAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Reasoned statement in the notice of opposition — Rule 15(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 2(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))

1. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Opposition proceedings — Content of the notice of opposition (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 15(2)(c) and (3)(b), replaced by Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/625, Art. 2(2)(c), and (4)) (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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26-28, 65, 66)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Determination of the relevant public — Attention level of the public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 30)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37, 48, 49)

6. 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 Xocolat and LUXOCOLAT (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 64, 70-75)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 November 2017 (Case R 541/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Especialidades Vira and Ms Mahr.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use — Criteria for assessment

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b) to (d) and (3))

(see paras 12-17, 25, 26, 40)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 November 2019 –

Bruno v Commission

(Case T‑241/18)

(Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Pension scheme — Severance grant — Payments to a national or private pension scheme since taking up duties — Pension rights acquired previously under a national scheme — Article 11(1) and Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment)

1. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Severance grant — Conditions for granting (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VIII, Art. 12(1)(b) and (2)) (see paras 37-41)

2. Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Severance grant — Conditions for granting — Situation of a member of staff who has made payments to a national or private pension scheme since taking up his duties — Situation of a member of staff who has previously acquired all of his pension rights under a national scheme and who has not made such payments — Non-comparable situations — Breach of the principle of equal treatment — None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VIII, Art. 12(2)) (see paras 57-59, 61, 66)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 4 July 2017 dismissing the request made by the applicant to pay him the severance grant provided for in Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, alternatively, of the subsequent decision of 18 January 2018 dismissing the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Luigi Bruno to pay the costs;
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 –

Super bock group v EUIPO — Agus (Crystal)

(Case T‑648/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Crystal — Earlier national word mark CRISTAL — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the goods — 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 16, 1)

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 para. 18)

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 paras 24, 31)

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 Crystal and CRISTAL (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 38, 45, 46)

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 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 37, 43)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 July 2018 (Case R 299/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Unicer-Bebidas de Portugal, SGPS SA and Agus.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
3.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Recognition of the distinctiveness of the sign not subject to a finding of a certain level of creativity or linguistic or artistic imagination — Mark fulfilling a decorative or ornamental function — Irrelevant (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18)
Agriculture — EAFRD financing — Support for rural development — Eligibility of operations and expenses — Reductions and exclusions — Obligation on the Member States to organise an effective system of administrative and on-site inspections — Two types of control independent in character — Eligibility criteria checks for both types of controls

(Commission Regulation No 65/2011, Arts 24, 25 and 26(1)(b) and (2))

(see paras 38, 39, 75, 87-89)
EU law – Principles – Rights of defence – Right to effective judicial protection – 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 disclose individual and specific grounds for the decisions adopted – Obligation to enable the person concerned effectively to put forward his or her point of view on the grounds held against him or her – Scope

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282, Annex II)

(see paras 49, 50, 52)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 December 2020 – Deza v Commission

(Case T‑638/18)

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

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 51, 52)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Meaning – Classification method for aquatic environmental hazards – Precluded (Art. 340, second para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1272/2008, as amended by Regulations No 286/2011 and No 944/2013, Annex I, point 4.1.3.5.5) (see paras 55, 63-66)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law which leads to the imposition or strengthening of obligations on individuals so as to affect their legal situation (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 67, 68)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of EU law – Requirement that the institutions manifestly and seriously disregard the limits of their discretion – Breach by the Commission of a rule affording it some discretion when classifying chemical substances and mixtures – Highly complex scientific situation – No sufficiently serious breach (Art. 340, second para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1272/2008, as amended by Regulations No 286/2011 and No 944/2013, Annex I, point 4.1.3.5.5) (see paras 77-113)

Re:

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Deza, a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;
EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of the decision-making process – Disclosure of questions set in tests for an open competition for the recruitment of EU officials – Presumption that the decision-making process will be undermined – Limits

(Art. 15(3) TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 42; Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Art. 6; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2) and (3))

(see paras 41-50, 53-61)
Approximation of laws – Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals – REACH regulation – Restrictions applicable to certain substances – Establishment of new restrictions and modification of existing restrictions – Assessment with regard to the principle of proportionality – Discretion of the legislature – Area involving political, economic and social choices – Judicial review – Limits – Lawfulness in the absence of disadvantages disproportionate to the objectives pursued

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Recitals 87, 89 and 91 and Article 1(1) and Annex XVII)

(see paras 223, 224, 226, 227, 230)
Concentrations between undertakings – Examination by the Commission – Definition of the market in question – Criteria – Substitutability of products – Demand-side substitutability – Assessment of demand substitution of two premium pay TV sports channels

(Council Regulation No 139/2004; Commission Regulation No 802/2004, Annex I; Commission Notice 97/C 372/03, paragraphs 15 and 17)

(see paras 63, 67-70, 74-81, 84)
International agreements – Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation – GATT 1994 – Not possible to invoke WTO agreements to challenge the legality of an EU measure – Exceptions – EU measure intended to ensure its implementation or referring thereto expressly and precisely – Application in anti-dumping matters

(Art. 216(2) TFEU; General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994; Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1994 Anti-Dumping Agreement); Protocol on the Accession of China to the WTO; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, recital 3 and Art. 2(7))

(see paras 56-60, 63-67, 74)
42

At the same time, the French criminal courts found that there had been no fraudulent intent or misappropriation. They made a number of statements, according to which: (1) although the datashop system did not comply with the Financial Regulation, it was, according to the Court of Auditors of the European Union, ‘a necessity given the inadequacy of that regulation’ and merely the ‘re-creation of a system already used completely legally by the OPOCE’; (2) ‘the existing Community procedures did not allow the data produced by Eurostat to be commercialised using a flexible, effective framework, and [, in] the absence of a suitable procedure, it was necessary to find solutions enabling Eurostat to perform its task’; and (3) ‘Financial Control, which had been involved with setting up the datashop network at the outset and had not been in favour of setting up that network using the system of tripartite contracts, in fact completely lost interest in how it was operating, leaving Eurostat officials in a position where they needed and were able to do “as best they could” at a time when the Commission’s strategy was to increase the supply of statistics given the very high levels of demand’ (order of no need to adjudicate; judgment of the cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris) of 23 June 2014).
34

The intervener contends that the applicant’s complaints seeking to challenge the proof of genuine use of the earlier trade marks and the conceptual comparison of the signs at issue are inadmissible. According to the intervener, the legal and factual issues raised by those complaints were already definitively dealt with in a decision which the Opposition Division adopted on 16 March 2017 in different opposition proceedings between the same parties, regarding signs that are identical to those at issue in the present case and goods covered by the mark applied for that are different from those at issue in the present case (Cases R 816/2017‑4 and R 1031/2017‑4) (‘the decision of 16 March 2017’). It submits that the decision of 16 March 2017 was challenged by the applicant and by the intervener before the same Board of Appeal as that which adopted the contested decision in the present case. It maintains that that Board of Appeal, which was called upon to rule on the issues of proof of genuine use of the earlier marks in question and the conceptual similarity of the signs at issue, confirmed the Opposition Division’s findings in the decision of 16 March 2017. It takes the view that, consequently, since the Board of Appeal’s decision as regards those issues was not challenged before the Court, the findings contained in the decision of 16 March 2017 have become final. More specifically, the intervener contends that, since it does not take any new factors into account or contain a re-examination of the parties’ situation, the contested decision in the present case is a mere confirmation of the decision of 16 March 2017 because the Board of Appeal expressly referred to the analysis of those issues that had been carried out in the context of the earlier opposition proceedings between the same parties. The intervener maintains that, consequently, in seeking the annulment of the contested decision in the present case, the applicant is ‘de facto’ seeking the annulment of the decision of 16 March 2017. Lastly, the intervener submits that, if the Court were not to hold the complaints in question to be inadmissible, that would run counter to the principles of res judicata and ne bis in idem and would create a situation of uncertainty regarding its exclusive rights, contrary to its legitimate expectations and to the principle of legal certainty.
101

As regards Article 10 ECHR, it must be observed that, admittedly, that convention is not, as long as the European Union has not acceded to it, a legal instrument which has been formally incorporated into EU law. Consequently, the examination of the validity of an act of EU secondary legislation must be carried out solely in the light of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter. However, it should be recalled, on the one hand, that, under Article 6(3) TEU, fundamental rights recognised by the ECHR constitute general principles of EU law and, on the other hand, that it follows from Article 52(3) of the Charter that the rights contained in the Charter which correspond to rights guaranteed by the ECHR are to have the same meaning and scope as those laid down by the ECHR. According to the explanations relating to that provision, which, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 6(1) TEU and Article 52(7) of the Charter, have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of interpreting it, the meaning and scope of the guaranteed rights are determined not only by the text of the ECHR but also, in particular, by the case-law of the ECtHR. It is also apparent from those explanations that Article 52(3) of the Charter is intended to ensure the necessary consistency between the rights contained in the Charter and the corresponding rights guaranteed by the ECHR, without thereby adversely affecting the autonomy of EU law and that of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Moreover, it must be pointed out that that equivalence between the freedoms guaranteed by the Charter and those guaranteed by the ECHR has been formally expressed in relation to freedom of expression (see judgment of 31 May 2018, Korwin-Mikke v Parliament, T‑770/16, EU:T:2018:320, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2020 –

Corporació Catalana de Mitjans Audiovisuals v EUIPO — Dalmat (LaTV3D)

(Case T‑135/19)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark LaTV3D — Earlier national word mark TV3 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Distinctive character — 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 16, 56, 57)

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 — Complementary nature of the goods or services (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 22)

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 — Composite mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29-32)

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 marks LaTV3D and TV3 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 49, 55, 67-70)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2018 (Case R 874/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Corporació Catalana de Mitjans Audiovisuals and Mr Dalmat.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 December 2018 (Case R 874/2018-2) in so far as it ruled out the existence of a likelihood of confusion in relation to the services other than ‘translation and interpretation’ services in Class 41 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
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 — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(1)(d))

(see para. 49)
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 — Abstract statement — Inadmissibility

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

(see paras 15, 16)
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 22-26)