ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 5 June 2019 –

EBM Technologies v EUIPO (MobiPACS)

(Case T‑272/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MobiPACS — Absolute ground for refusal — Slogan — Level of attention of the relevant public — 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 any distinctive character — Definition (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted 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 paras 21, 22)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Slogan with a fantasy character (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 23)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Slogan carrying an objective message (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Laudatory promotional formula (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 25)

7. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark MobiPACS (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 33, 46-51)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2018 (Case R 2145/2017-2) relating to an application for registration of the word sign MobiPACS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2018 (Case R 2145/2017-2);
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 37, 38)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 –

VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a pink bottle)

(Case T‑325/18)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a pink bottle — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(i) to (iii) of Regulation 2017/1001))

1. Acts of the institutions — Temporal application — Retrospective effect of a substantive rule — Conditions (see para. 16)

2. 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, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 17)

3. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the EUIPO’s own motion — Invalidity proceedings concerning absolute grounds for refusal — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1) and 76(1)) (see para. 26)

4. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) and (e) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Three-dimensional EU trade mark in the shape of a pink bottle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (e)) (see paras 28-38, 44-48, 53)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Signs which consist exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Meaning (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see para. 54)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 1037/2017-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between VI.TO. and Mr Bottega.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary proceedings — Audi alteram partem — Observance of the rights of the defence — The official’s right to meaningfully assert his views on the reality and relevance of the facts, the alleged circumstances and the documents used against him

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a))

(see paras 77-79)
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 25-27, 46, 47)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2019 –

BO v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T‑50/18)

(Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Call for tenders of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Freelance translators — Selection procedure — Rejection of a tenderer’s offer — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Assessment of the duty to state reasons by reference to the circumstances of the case — Need to specify all the relevant factual and legal elements — None (Art. 296, second para. TFEU) (see paras 22, 23)

2. European Union public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see para. 33)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 23 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender for the conclusion of a framework contract for the translation of legal texts from German into Greek.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
4.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Earlier trade mark constituted by an EU trade mark — Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 49)
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. 48)
EU law — Principles — Rights of the defence — Whether applicable to administrative procedures initiated by the Commission — Scope — Application to a procedure for recovering debts of contractual origin in respect of a recipient of European funds — Not included

(Art. 272 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 48)

(see paras 72, 73)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2019 –

Gres de Aragón v EUIPO (GRES ARAGÓN)

(Case T‑624/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark GRES ARAGÓN — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law)

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction addressed to the Office — Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(6)) (see para. 15)

2. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 94(1), first sentence, 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 paras 26, 27)

3. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO's previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see paras 28, 29)

4. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal adjudicating in opposition proceedings — Challenged by the adducing of new facts — Not permissible — Account taken, for the purposes of interpreting EU law, of EU, national or international case-law not cited before the OHIM bodies — Whether permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see para. 32)

5. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings before the Court — Not permissible (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 39)

6. 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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Geographical names (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 42)

7. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — EUIPO's previous decision-making practice (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 44)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 August 2018 (Case R 2269/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign GRES ARAGÓN as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 August 2018 (Case R 2269/2017-1);
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Summary of the pleas in law and arguments relied on — Pleas in law and arguments not set out in the application — Inadmissibility

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

(see paras 68-70)
Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Amplification of an existing plea — No amplification — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d) and 84(1))

(see paras 31-36)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 –

Zotkov v Commission

(Case T‑457/18)

(Civil Service — Contractual agents — Remuneration — Family benefits — Request to treat a person as a dependent child — Conditions of grant — Factors to take into account in the calculation of maintenance expenditure — Error in law)

1. Actions brought by officials — Action against a decision rejecting a complaint — Effect — Disputed measure referred to the Court — Condition — Statement of reasons for the rejection decision must be the same as for the contested measure (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 17, 18)

2. Actions brought by officials — Subject matter — Directions to the administration — Inadmissibility (Art. 266 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 21)

3. EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, systematic and teleological interpretation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 2(4)) (see paras 32-35, 42, 47-49)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 April 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application for the grant of the allowance for a person treated as a dependent child and, second, review by the Commission of that decision, after correction of the financial calculation.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Officials – Promotion – Complaint by a candidate not promoted – Decision to reject – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Inadequate statement of reasons – Regularisation during the proceedings – Conditions

(Art. 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2))

(see paras 41, 58-61)
Competition — Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and national competition authorities — Commission’s right take no action on a complaint already processed by a national competition authority — Scope

(Arts 101 and 102 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 5 and 13(2))

(see paras 45, 47, 48, 53, 54)
European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures against Iran – Measures in the context of the fight against nuclear proliferation – Scope of the review – Review extending to all the material used to demonstrate that the risk of nuclear proliferation is still ongoing – Factual basis – Lack

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2018/833; Council Regulation 2018/827)

(see paras 113, 131, 132)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 September 2020 – Crédit agricole and Others v ECB

(Case T‑144/18)

(Economic and monetary policy – Prudential supervision of credit institutions – Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments – Tasks entrusted to the ECB – Specific supervision powers of the ECB – Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 – Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital – Absence of individual examination)

1. Economic and monetary policy – Economic policy – Supervision of the EU financial sector – Single supervisory mechanism – Prudential supervision of groups of credit institutions on a consolidated basis – Capital requirements – Scope of the control and evaluation carried out by the European Central Bank (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 575/2013, Arts 26(1), first subpara., (a) to (f) and 36; Council Regulation No 1024/2013, Art 4(1)(f)) (see paras 45-50)

2. Economic and monetary policy – Economic policy – Supervision of the EU financial sector – Single supervisory mechanism – Prudential supervision of groups of credit institutions on a consolidated basis – Capital requirements – Scope of the control and evaluation carried out by the European Central Bank – Obligation to carry out an individual prudential examination (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 575/2013, Art. 92(3); Council Regulation No 1024/2013, Arts 4(1)(f) and 16(1)(c) and (2)(d)) (see paras 51, 65-72)

3. Economic and monetary policy – Economic policy – Supervision of the EU financial sector – Single supervisory mechanism – Prudential supervision of groups of credit institutions on a consolidated basis – Capital requirements – Scope of the control and evaluation carried out by the European Central Bank – Funds that may be subject to a measure requiring the implementation of a policy or special treatment – Concept – Irrevocable payment commitments (IPCs) – Included (Council Regulation No 1024/2013, Arts 4(1)(f) and 16(1)(c) and (2)(d)) (see paras 59, 60)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment, first, of ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2017-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of 19 December 2017, and, second, of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-17 of 14 February 2019.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls paragraph 9 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/380 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of Annex A thereto as well as paragraph 9 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCAG-17 of the ECB of 14 February 2019 and Article 3 of the annex thereto;
Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Recruitment – Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract – Adoption of the decision without first giving the person concerned the opportunity to express his views on all the elements available to the administration – Infringement of the right to be heard – Consequences

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a))

(see paras 152-156, 165)
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 – No EU measure intended to ensure its implementation or referring thereto expressly and precisely

(Protocol on the Accession of China to the WTO, Section 15; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2016/1036, Arts 2(7) and 22(a))

(see paras 156-161)
European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela – Scope of the review – Proof that the measure is well founded – Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the grounds held against the persons or entities concerned are well founded

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2018/901, Annex I; Council Regulations No 2017/2063, Annex IV and No 2018/899)

(see paras 35-38, 40)
76

Secondly, the criminal offences reported in the note of 19 March 2003 clearly show that the applicant was implicated because of his duties and role within Eurostat, and this is supported by the dismissal order. In paragraph 2.3 of the note of 19 March 2003 on the ‘Findings made during the investigation’, it is stated, in the fourth subparagraph, that ‘in this case, a significant part of the turnover “declared” by those three Datashops — between 50 and 55% — was placed in a slush fund the use of which was subject to the authorisation of an official of [Eurostat]’. As is clear from page 9 of the dismissal order, ‘the commercial director of MESSAGERIES DU LIVRE requested that Eurostat, represented by … or Mr DE ESTEBAN, authorise payment of the invoices issued’. It should be noted that, as is apparent from the case file, that authorisation could be granted by only five persons, including a person referred to by name in the note and the applicant. Moreover, on page 15 of the dismissal order, it is explained that ‘until 1998 … financial reserve transactions were carried out under the control [of the applicant], Mr Byk’s supervisor.’ As a result, there was no doubt as to the identity of the persons implicated in the matters described in the note sent by OLAF. The same considerations apply to the statements that ‘certain Community officials [set up] a network of economic operators, one of the objectives of which is to conceal from the Commission part of the revenues’, and that ‘the same Community officials used the sums in question’ (page 7 of the note of 19 March 2013, paragraph 3.1 Breach of trust). By virtue of their functions within Eurostat, the implicated persons described had a role as economic operators who — also by virtue of their functions — were capable of disposing of the sums in question. Accordingly, the facts described in the note of 19 March 2013 show quite clearly that the applicant, who was the Director of the ‘Information technology, Publications and External Relations’ Directorate of the Commission and Mr Byk’s superior, was implicated.
56

Secondly, the applicant submits that the extracts from the catalogues indicate that the products mentioned therein can be purchased only in three different ways: on the intervener’s website, in its shops or by telephone. The fact, put forward by the applicant, that the products in question were also sold by online shops other than that of the intervener (see paragraphs 40 to 43 above) therefore contradicts the claim that the catalogues are authentic or, conversely, the catalogues contradict the claim that the products in question were also sold by online shops other than that of the intervener. However, in the light of the extracts from the catalogues produced by the intervener, it is clear that there is no indication that the sales channels referred to by the applicant are the only sources from which it is possible to obtain articles bearing the earlier mark. The wording in the catalogues produced does not preclude retailers other than the intervener from also selling such products. As EUIPO rightly observes, it is not unusual for such other retailers not to be mentioned in the intervener’s catalogues. When questioned in that regard at the hearing, the applicant was unable to identify precise wording in the catalogues which would indicate unequivocally that the sales channels referred to in the catalogues were the only sources from which items bearing the earlier mark could be obtained. The applicant’s argument therefore has no factual basis, with the result that it cannot provide support for the contention that it is implausible that the catalogue pages produced are actually extracts from the content of the catalogues from which the cover page was produced.