ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
4.

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 – Origin and use of the sign in dispute – 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 28-30, 68)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2021 –

Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – Le-Vel Brands (Le-Vel)

(Case T‑331/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark Le-Vel – Earlier national word mark LEVEL – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity of the goods and services – 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 15, 16)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks Le-Vel and LEVEL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 35, 45, 51, 58, 63)

4. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 30)

5. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 49, 50)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 March 2020 (Case R 2113/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Le-Vel Brands.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 No 2017/1001

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

(see paras 19, 20)
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – No genuine use of the trade mark – Proof of use – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Rules 22(3) and 40(5))

(see para. 29)
Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Restrictive measures against Syria – Prohibition on entry on transit and freezing of funds of influential businesspersons operating in Syria – 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 – Whether summary statement of reasons sufficient

(Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2015/1836, (CFSP) 2020/212, (CFSP) 2020/719 and (CFSP) 2021/855, Annex I; Council Regulations No 36/2012, No 2020/211, No 2020/716 and No 2021/848, Annex II)

(see paras 38-43, 50-52)
State aid – Examination of complaints – Obligations of the Commission – Complaint lodged by an undertaking seeking to inform the Commission of aid granted unlawfully in order to obtain a decision on its compatibility – Inadmissibility of the complaint – Breach of the principle of legal certainty – None

(Arts 107(1) and 108 TFEU; Council Regulation No 2015/1589, Arts 1(f) and (h), 12(1) and 24(2))

(see paras 25-34, 37-56)
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 42(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. 23)
Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Termination of a fixed-term contract on the ground of a breakdown in the relationship of trust – Obligation to state reasons – Scope

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.; Conditions of Employment of other Servants, Art. 47(b)(ii))

(see paras 51-58)
Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Members of the temporary staff falling under Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants – Member of the temporary staff assigned to a political group in the Parliament – Dissolution of the political group – Consequence – Termination of the contract – No obligation for the Parliament to reassign the person concerned to a new group

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 2(c); Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Arts 33 and 34(3))

(see paras 17-24, 116, 117)
Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Conditions – Compensation for loss caused to an official or member of staff – Duty of the administration to have regard for the welfare of officials – Scope

(Arts 268, 270 and 340, second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(b); Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 24, 90 and 91)

(see paras 156-170, 174, 175)
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 54, 60, 61, 63)
2.

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 – Whether permissible – Condition – National decision adopted in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection – Council’s verification obligation – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Third State that has acceded to the European Convention on Human Rights – Irrelevant – Purpose of the restrictive measures aimed at consolidating the rule of law and respect for human rights (Decision 2014/119/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2020/373, Annex; Council Regulation Nos 208/2014, Annex I, and 2020/370) (see paras 79-85)
Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Reports procedure – Appraisal report – Drawing up – Self-assessment – Duty of the person under appraisal to show discretion – Scope – Taking into consideration comments made by the person under appraisal in rejecting his complaint against the decision not to renew his contract – No infringement of the right to freedom of expression

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 11; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 12, 21 and 43(3); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 11)

(see paras 33-36, 38, 39, 52)
EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Obligation to state reasons – Scope

(Art. 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4)

(see paras 41-44)
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; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)

(see paras 135-138)
2.

EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 25, 26)
Community designs – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Modification of the terms of the dispute as brought before the Board of Appeal – Not permissible

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188)

(see para. 55)
23

Secondly, by reference to the solemnly affirmed statements of the first lawyer and his wife, the applicant describes the circumstances which led to the failure to comply with the time limit for filing the statement setting out the grounds of appeal. It argues that that time limit, which expired at midnight on 12 June 2019, had been duly entered in the electronic and paper calendars used by the law firm concerned for managing deadlines and that, even before that date, that statement had been finalised, sent to the lawyers representing the applicant in Switzerland, and verified by the applicant itself. It states that the only members of the trade mark law department of the firm in question who were present on that date were the first lawyer and the employee responsible for trade mark cases, as the other lawyers from that department were on leave or at external meetings. In the morning, the first lawyer asked that employee to prepare the statement setting out the grounds of appeal by attaching the annexes and the list of annexes to it and presenting it to him for signature. Immediately afterwards, he attended a number of telephone conferences before having a relatively late lunch in a restaurant located near the firm. When she was about to leave the firm at the end of her working day, at about 17.00, that employee asked the first lawyer about that statement, and he stated that he would sign it and send it to EUIPO himself. At around 18.30, the first lawyer suddenly fell ill, which prevented him not only from signing that statement and sending it to EUIPO, but also, due to the seriousness of his symptoms, from thinking to ask someone else to complete those tasks for him. The following day, namely on 13 June 2019, he realised that he had not sent the statement setting out the grounds of appeal to EUIPO.
39

It should be observed, at the outset, that according to settled case-law, the statement of reasons required by Article 296 TFEU must be appropriate to the measure at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure, in such a way as to permit the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for it and to allow the competent court to exercise its power of review. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining an explanation. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 296 TFEU must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question (see judgment of 8 September 2011, Commission v Netherlands, C‑279/08 P, EU:C:2011:551, paragraph 125 and the case-law cited).
27

The concept of doubts set out in Article 4(3) and (4) of Regulation 2015/1589 is an objective one. Whether or not such doubts exist requires investigation of both the circumstances under which the contested measure was adopted and its content. That investigation must be conducted objectively, comparing the grounds of the decision with the information available to the Commission when it decided on the compatibility of the disputed aid with the internal market. It follows that judicial review by the General Court of the existence of doubts will, by its nature, go beyond consideration of whether or not there has been a manifest error of assessment (see, to that effect, judgments of 2 April 2009, Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission, C‑431/07 P, EU:C:2009:223, paragraph 63, and of 10 July 2012, Smurfit Kappa Group v Commission, T‑304/08, EU:T:2012:351, paragraph 80 and the case-law cited). The information ‘available’ to the Commission is that which seemed relevant to the assessment to be carried out and which could have been obtained, upon request by the Commission, during the preliminary examination phase (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 September 2017, Commission v Frucona Košice, C‑300/16 P, EU:C:2017:706, paragraph 71). Although it may thus be necessary for the Commission, where appropriate, to go beyond a mere examination of the facts and points of law brought to its notice, it is not, on the other hand, for the Commission, on its own initiative and in the absence of any evidence to that effect, to seek all information which might be connected with the case before it, even where such information is in the public domain (see, to that effect, judgments of 29 April 2021, Achemos Grupė and Achema v Commission, C‑847/19 P, EU:C:2021:343, paragraphs 49 and 50, and of 2 September 2021, Commission v Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology, C‑57/19 P, EU:C:2021:663, paragraph 45).
4.

EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Proof of use – Genuine use – Use during a five year period – Consideration of evidence concerning use outside of that period – Conditions (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1) and 58(1)) (see para. 27)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see paras 57-59)
EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark – Subject matter and material scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Examination of alteration of distinctive character

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second para. (a) and 42(2) and (3))

(see paras 22-24)
1.

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 – Concept (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 14)
2.

EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – No genuine use of a trade mark – Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark – Subject matter and scope of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Examination of alteration of distinctive character (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1) and 58(1)) (see paras 33-37, 40)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2022 –

Domator24.com Paweł Nowak v EUIPO – Siwek and Didyk (Armchair)

(Case T‑256/21) ( 1 )

(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered community design representing an armchair – Earlier community design – Proof of disclosure – Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – Article 25(1)(b) and Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)

1. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Disclosure to the public – Exception – Facts not reasonably capable of being known to specialist circles of the sector concerned – Events taking place outside the EU – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 7(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24, 33)

2. Judicial proceedings – Proof – Probative value – Criteria for assessment – Principles of the unfettered adduction of evidence and the unfettered evaluation of evidence (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 85) (see para. 30)

3. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Disclosure to the public – Proof of the disclosure – Content of a website (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 7(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 31)

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 – Representation of an armchair (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 36, 37, 50, 56, 65)

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 – Criteria for assessment – Creative licence (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 46, 53, 54)

6. 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 58, 59)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Domator24.com Paweł Nowak to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
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 – 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 paras 23, 24, 28-30)
EU law – Principles – Rights of the 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 regarding the reasons relied on 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) 2020/2033, Annex II; Council Regulations No 1183/2005 and 2020/2021, Annex)

(see paras 52-54)
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Application to repair an omission to give a decision - Order for costs making no distinction between proceedings on an application for interim relief and the main proceedings - No omission to give a decision - Inadmissibility

( Rules of Procedure, Arts 67 and 69(2 ) )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint - Mandatory - Action brought before the complaint was rejected - Inadmissible

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2) )

2. Officials - Actions - Procedural framework - Action brought by a trade union - Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

3. Action for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Action brought by a trade union in connection with a dispute within the sphere of the civil service - No jurisdiction on the part of the Court of First Instance - Referral to the Court of Justice

(EEC Treaty, Art. 73, second para.; Council Decision 88/591, Art. 3; Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 47, second para.)

Summary

1. As a general rule, any action brought by an official against the institution which employs him must necessarily be preceded by an administrative complaint which has been rejected by express or implied decision. As a result of Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations, an action brought before that preliminary procedure has been completed is premature and therefore inadmissible.

2. A trade union may not bring an action under Article 91 of the Staff Regulations because the remedy provided by Article 91 is available only to officials and other servants of the Communities and not to trade-union organizations.

3. An action concerning a dispute within the sphere of the civil service which is brought by a trade-union organization under the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty does not fall within the jurisdiction attributed to the Court of First Instance by Article 3 of the Council Decision of 24 October 1988. When such an action is brought before the Court of First Instance, it must refer it to the Court of Justice.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Prima facie case

(Rules of Procedure, Art. 83(2))

2. Procedure - Application for legal aid - Application in respect of the interim proceedings - No prima facie case in respect of the main action - Dismissal

(Rules of Procedure, Art. 76(3))