ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2017 —Freddo v EUIPO — Freddo Freddo (freggo)

(Case T‑243/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the figurative EU trade mark ‘freggo’ — Earlier EU figurative trade mark ‘TENTAZIONE FREDDO FREDDO’ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Legality of the decision of a Board of Appeal adjudicating in opposition proceedings—Challenge in reliance on new elements of law or fact—Not permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 15)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20, 68)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 32, 56)

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—Figurative marks freggo and TENTAZIONE FREDDO FREDDO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 62, 65, 67, 69-72)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 February 2016 (Case R 919/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Freddo Freddo SL and Freddo SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 May 2017 —

Enercon v EUIPO — Gamesa Eólica (Blended shades of green)

(Case T‑36/16)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU trade mark consisting of blended shades of green — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. 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—Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 22)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 33)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Signs of which a trade mark may consist—Colours or combinations of colours—Condition—Distinctive character—Account to be taken of the public interest in not unduly restricting the availability of colours (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 28-32)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Blended shades of green (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 39, 40, 45-51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2015 (Case R 597/2015-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Gamesa Eólica and Enercon.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
5.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Trade mark made up of several elements — Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark — Scope of protection of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 27)
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. 22)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 —

Bay v Parliament

(Case T‑302/16)

(Law governing the Institutions — Decision of the President of the Parliament imposing on a Member of the European Parliament the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the subsistence allowance — Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Right of access to the file — Error of fact)

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see para. 25)

2. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Examination of the General Court’s own motion (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 60) (see paras 35, 36)

3. Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Concept — No mention, in the contested measure, of the remedies open to the addressees — Not permissible (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 45, second para., and 53) (see para. 40)

4. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 266 TFEU) (see para. 45)

5. Fundamental rights — European Convention on Human Rights — Instrument not formally integrated into the EU legal order (Art. 6(3) TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 52(3)) (see para. 55)

6. Fundamental rights — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to sound administration — Right of access of any person to the file concerning him — Scope (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)) (see para. 56)

7. European Parliament — Members — Disciplinary measures — Penalties — Loss of entitlement to subsistence allowance — Decision of the bureau of the Parliament dismissing the internal action of the Member concerned and confirming the penalty — Not applicable to the decision-making procedure in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47(2); Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Arts 166 and 167) (see para. 71)

8. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Observance thereof in the context of administrative proceedings — No obligation to allow the person concerned by the procedure to be assisted by his counsel during consultation of the file concerning him (see para. 74)

9. European Parliament — Members — Disciplinary measures — Proof of the fault alleged — Assessment of the probative value of various items of evidence — Witness statements (Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Art. 166) (see paras 82, 86, 88)

Re:

ACTION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the President of the Parliament of 9 March 2016 and of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 11 April 2016 imposing on the applicant the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the subsistence allowance for a period of five days.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character of a sign — Circumstance necessarily implying absence of distinctive character of the sign

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

(see para. 38)
Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Renewal of a fixed-term contract — Administration’s discretion — Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Account taken of the interests of the staff member concerned and of the service

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, Art. 47)

(see paras 38, 44, 58)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 September 2017 — Rühland v EUIPO —8 seasons design (Lamp in the form of a star)

(Case T‑779/16)

(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a lamp in the form of a star — Earlier Community design — Ground of invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

1. Community designs — Ground 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 prior design (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1)(b), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 17, 47, 48)

2. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Informed user — Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1)(b), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20, 53)

3. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design — Representation of a lamp in the form of a star (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1)(b), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 25, 38, 44)

4. Community designs — Ground 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(2), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2016 (Case R 878/2015-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between 8 seasons design and Mr Rühland.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark—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; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)

(see para. 27)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 23 October 2017 – Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO – Sebapharma (SeboCalm)

(Case T-441/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark SeboCalm — Earlier EU word mark — 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 15-17, 73, 74)

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–Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 1(2), 7(2) and 8(1)(b)) (see para 24)

3. EU trade mark–Procedural provisions–Statement of reasons for decisions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see para 25)

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 SeboCalm and Sebotherm (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 36, 37, 55, 62, 69, 75, 76)

5. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Relative grounds for refusal–Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services–Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark–Assessment of the likelihood of confusion–Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 32)

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–Similarity of the marks concerned (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para 38)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO dated 19 May 2016 (Case R 852/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sebapharma and Tetra Pharm (1997).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2017 — Knöll v Europol

(Case T‑563/16)

(Civil Service — Europol — Non-renewal of a contract — Refusal to award a contract for an indefinite period — Compensation — Annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal — Enforcement of the judgments in Cases F‑27/09 and F‑104/12)

1. 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, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 21-23)

2. Judicial proceedings—Admissibility of actions—Assessment having regard to rules in force at the time the application lodged—Formal requirements—Clear and precise statement of the pleas relied on—Appeal before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 50(1)(e)) (see paras 25-28)

3. Actions for annulment—Judgment annulling a measure—Effects—Obligation to implement—Scope—Both the operative part and the grounds of the judgment to be taken into account—Retroactive effect of annulment—Obligation to ensure that the annulled measure is not replaced by a measure affected by the same irregularity (Article 266 TFEU) (see paras 33-35)

4. Acts of the institutions—Directives—Directive 1999/70 concerning the ETUC, UNICE and CEEP Framework Agreement on fixed-term work—Direct imposition of obligations on EU institutions in relations with their staff—Not included—Invocability—Scope (Art. 288, third para. TFEU; Council Directive 1999/70) (see paras 46-48)

5. Officials—Members of the temporary staff—Recruitment—Renewal of a fixed-term contract—Administration’s discretion—Europol staff—Adoption of an internal directive establishing the principle of renewal under certain conditions—Voluntary curb on the administration’s discretion in the matter (Europol Staff Regulations, Art. 6) (see paras 58, 59, 61, 67, 70, 72)

6. Actions brought by officials—Judgment annulling a measure—Effects—Obligation to implement—Period of waiting extended by unlawfulness of a decision of an institution—Compensation for non-material harm through appropriate reparation (Article 266 TFEU) (see paras 76, 77)

7. Officials—Principles—Protection of legitimate expectations—Conditions—Specific assurances given by the authorities (see paras 79, 80)

Re:

ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of Europol of 29 July 2014 not to renew for an indefinite period the contract awarded to the applicant and to allocate a sum of EUR 10000 to him on account of the length of the procedure and the prolongation of his state of uncertainty and annulment of the decision rejecting his complaint.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark–Surrender, revocation and invalidity–Causes of revocation–Absence of genuine use of a trade mark–Proof of use of the earlier mark–Genuine use–Meaning–Criteria for assessment

[Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1) and 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 22(3) and (4) and 40(5))

(see paras 18-20)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 October 2017 – 1. FC Köln v EUIPO (SPÜRBAR ANDERS.)

(Case T-126/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark SPÜRBAR ANDERS. — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (2) 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–Concept/Meaning/Definition–Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16-18)

2. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19-22)

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–Slogan with a fantasy character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 23)

4. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Absolute grounds for refusal–Marks devoid of any distinctive character–Word mark SPÜRBAR ANDERS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 32-36, 54-56, 58)

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–Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 46, 47, 49)

6. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Assessment of the registrability of a sign–EU rules only taken into account–Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries–Decisions not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 64)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2016 (Case R 718/2015-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign SPÜRBAR ANDERS. as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. The action is dismissed
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2017 – Mapei v EUIPO – Steenfabrieken Vandersanden (zerø)

(Case T-722/16)

(EU trademark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark zerø — Earlier EU word mark ZERO — 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–Appeals procedure–Action before the EU judicature–Jurisdiction of the General Court–Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 14)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 49)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

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–Figurative mark zerø and word mark ZERO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24-28, 35, 36, 40, 41, 45-48, 50)

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–Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 30)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 (Case R 2371/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Steenfabrieken Vandersanden and Mapei.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Absolute grounds for refusal–Descriptive character of a sign–Circumstance necessarily implying absence of distinctive character of the sign

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

(see para. 51)
Judicial proceedings–Application initiating proceedings–Formal requirements–Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based–General reference to other documents not annexed to 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 31, 32, 56)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2017 — CJ v ECDC

(Case T‑602/16)

(Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Career evaluation report — Assessment exercise 2012 — Drawing up — Application for annulment of the decision closing appraisal report)

1. Officials—Reports procedure—Appraisal report—Drawing up—Report vitiated by procedural irregularity—Consequences (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) (see paras 33, 42, 63)

2. Officials—Reports procedure—Appraisal report—Subject-matter (Staff Regulations, Art. 43; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 15) (see para. 56)

3. Officials—Reports procedure—Appraisal report—Discretion of assessors—Judicial review—Limits—Manifest error of assessment—Meaning (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) (see paras 61, 62)

4. Officials—Reports procedure—Appraisal report—Drawing up—Dialogue with the reporting officer—Appraisal dialogue—None—Consequences (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) (see paras 74, 76, 81, 96)

5. Officials—Reports procedure—Appraisal report—Drawing up—Mandatory consultation of immediate superiors—Scope of the obligation (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) (see paras 86-90)

Re:

ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of the appeal assessor of the ECDC of 21 September 2015 finalising the applicant’s appraisal report for the year 2011 and, insofar as necessary, the decision of the ECDC of 20 April 2016 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision of the appeal assessor.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;