ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
According to Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark ‘upon opposition by the proprietor of the trade mark, a trade mark shall not be registered where an agent or representative of the proprietor of the trade mark applies for registration thereof in his own name without the proprietor’s consent’.

That provision does not explicitly mention a condition of identity or one of similarity between the proprietor’s trade mark and the trade mark applied for by the agent or representative.

However, Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 is to be understood as intended to prevent the misuse of the proprietor’s trade mark by his agent or representative as such agents or representatives may exploit the knowledge and experience acquired during their business relationship with the proprietor and therefore improperly benefit from the effort and investment which the trade mark proprietor himself made. That provision in essence thus requires that there should be a direct link between the proprietor’s trade mark and the trade mark requested to be registered by the agent or representative in his own name. Such a link can exist only if the trade marks in question match.

That proposition is supported by the travaux préparatoires of the regulation on the Community trade mark. They provide a useful insight into the legislature’s intentions and suggest an interpretation whereby the earlier trade mark and the trade mark applied for must be identical –– not merely similar –– in order for Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 to apply.

The EU legislature originally envisaged in the pre-draft of the regulation relating to the Community trade mark that the provision at issue could also be applied in a case where the signs are similar. However, this option was not included in the final version of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Likewise, in the Council of the European Union’s Document No 11035/82, which contains a summary of the conclusions of the Working Group on the regulation on the Community trade mark within the Council, the Working Group expressly indicated that it had not adopted the suggestion of a delegation that the provision concerned should also apply in cases of ‘similar’ trade marks for ‘similar’ products.

It follows from the above that the intention of the EU legislature was that Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 can be applied only if the proprietor’s trade mark and the mark applied for by the agent or representative of the proprietor are identical and not merely similar.

(see paras 23-28, 37)
European Union public contracts — Tender procedure — Award of contracts — The most economically advantageous tender — Award criteria — Observance of the principle of equal treatment of tenderers and of the principle of transparency — Awarding authority applying sub-criteria not previously brought to the attention of tenderers — Not permissible

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Arts 102(1) and 105(2); Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Art. 149)

(see paras 33-37, 48)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2018 –

DNV GL v EUIPO (Sustainablel)

(Case T‑644/17)

(European Union trade mark — Application for European Union word mark Sustainablel — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2001))

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 — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 15)

2. 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 — Meaning (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16, 17)

3. 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 — Word mark Sustainablel (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 22-28, 32-35, 41)

4. 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 — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 31)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Refusal of registration based on one of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Whether sufficient (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 39)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the various grounds for refusal — Overlap of the scope of the grounds set out in Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) to (d)) (see para. 40)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 2/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word mark Sustainablel as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2018 –

UR v Commission

(Case T‑761/17)

(Civil service — Open competition — Notice of competition EPSO/AD/322/16 for the recruitment of administrators in the field of audit (AD 5/AD 7) — Eligibility condition — Required qualification — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Article 27, first paragraph, of the Staff Regulations)

1. Officials — Competitions — Competition based on qualifications and tests — Decision not to admit to tests — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.) (see paras 18, 19, 23)

2. Actions brought by officials — Action directed against a decision of non-inclusion on a competition reserve list — Possibility of invoking irregularity of the competition notice to challenge non-inclusion — Conditions (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 33)

3. Officials — Competitions — Conditions for admission — Mandatory provisions of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 27, first para.) (see paras 36-41)

4. Officials — Competitions — Competition based on qualifications and tests — Conditions for admission — Fixing by the competition notice — Diplomas produced or professional experience attested — Discretion of the selection board — Judicial review — Limits (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Arts 1 and 5) (see paras 63-65, 69)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 11 August 2017 of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/322/16, taken following a review, not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list for that competition.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) of 29 January 2019 –

The GB Foods v EUIPO — Yatecomeré (YATEKOMO)

(Case T‑336/17)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark YATEKOMO — National figurative mark yatecomeré — Admissibility of new information seeking to substantiate the accuracy of a well-known fact — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Actions before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Declaratory judgments — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2) and (3)) (see para. 26)

2. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion — Scope — Obligation to prove matters of common knowledge — Absence — Dispute before the General Court — Submission of documents to demonstrate the accuracy of a matter of common knowledge (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 30)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35-37, 39, 49)

4. 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 — Word mark YATEKOMO and figurative mark yatecomeré (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 45, 62-71, 79)

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 57, 59, 61)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 60)

7. 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. 75)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2017 (Case R 1506/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Yatecomeré and The GB Foods.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Privileges and immunities of the European Union — Members of the European Parliament — Immunity in respect of opinions expressed and votes cast in the performance of their duties — Scope — Impossibility of waiving that immunity — Verification by the Parliament of the conditions for recognition thereof

(Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Arts 8 and 9)

(see paras 33, 34, 37)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 23 October 2018 –

Mamas and Papas v EUIPO — Wall-Budden (Cot bumpers)

(Case T‑672/17)

(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a cot bumper — Examination by the Board of Appeal of its own motion of the facts constituting disclosure — Principle of functional continuity — Insufficient evidence to establish disclosure)

1. Community designs — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies — Not included (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61) (see paras 18, 19)

2. Community designs — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion — Action for invalidity — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63(1)) (see paras 32, 33, 35)

3. Community designs — Ground for invalidity — Lack of novelty — Previous disclosure of identical design — Proof of the disclosure (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 5(1)(b) and 7(1); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(v) and (vi)) (see paras 36, 44-48, 58, 59, 60)

4. Community designs — Appeals procedure — Appeal brought against a decision by a department of EUIPO — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 60(1)) (see para. 39)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2017 (Case R 208/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mamas and Papas and Jane Wall-Budden.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 February 2019 –

Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Briloner Leuchten (Lamp)

(Case T‑767/17)

(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing lighting apparatus — Ground for invalidity — Prior design — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

1. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the prior 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 17, 18, 43)

2. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — Conflict with a prior design — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the prior design — Informed user — Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1)(b), 10(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 19)

3. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — Conflict with a prior design — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the prior design — Criteria for assessment — Designer’s freedom (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 45)

4. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the prior design — Saturation of the state of the art — Relevance (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 26)

5. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the prior design — General tendency in design matters — Irrelevant (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1)(b) and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 29)

6. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the prior design — Representation of lighting apparatus (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1)(b) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 32, 35-38, 40)

7. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the prior design — Determination of the overall impression having regard to the manner of use of the product (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1)(b) and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 39)

8. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the prior design — Determination of the overall impression in relation to one or more prior designs, taken individually (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1)(b) and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 52)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 (Case R 746/2016-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Eglo Leuchten and Briloner Leuchten.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the award procedure for a public works contract, not to accept a tender — Obligation to communicate, following a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the tenderer — No obligation on the awarding authority to provide a detailed comparative analysis of the tender accepted and the tender of the unsuccessful tenderer

(Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 113(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Art. 161(1) and (2))

(see paras 41, 45, 46)
European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures against Syria — 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 relied on against the persons or entities concerned are well-founded

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decisions 2013/255/CFSP, (CFSP) 2017/917 and (CFSP) 2018/778; Council Regulations No 36/2012, 2017/907 and 2018/774)

(see paras 41-43)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 24 January 2019 –

Ilhan v EUIPO — Time Gate (BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY)

(Case T‑785/17)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY — Earlier word mark SAM — Relative ground for refusal — Extinction of rights due to acquiescence — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court — Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 61(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Limitation through acquiescence — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 54(1)) (see paras 20, 21)

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 — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 40, 41, 43, 51, 75)

3. 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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 63)

4. 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 — Earlier trade mark constituted by an EU trade mark — Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 71)

5. 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 — Figurative mark BIG SAM SPORTSWEAR COMPANY and word mark SAM (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b) and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 79-82)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2017 (Case R 974/2016-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Time Gate and Mr Ilhan.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Action for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Measure entailing restrictive measures against a person or body — Measure published and notified to the addressees — Date of notification of the measure

(Art. 263, 6th para. TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1))

(see paras 43, 44, 46)
Agriculture — EAGF and EAFRD financing — Clearance of accounts — Procedure — Bilateral meeting with the Member State concerned convened by the Commission — Subject-matter — Need to allow an adversarial debate on the issues in dispute

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; Commission Regulation No 885/2006, Art. 11(1) 3rd para.)

(see para. 94)
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

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1) and Art. 75, first sentence)

(see paras 47-49)
Agriculture — EAGF and EAFRD financing — Clearance of accounts — Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules — Challenge by the Member State concerned — Burden of proof — Shared by the Commission and the Member State

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1306/2013; Council Regulation No 73/2009, Art. 22(1); Commission Regulation No 1122/2009, Art. 26(1); Council Directive 79/409, Art. 5(a), (b) and (d))

(see paras 36-39, 45)
Agriculture — EAGF and EAFRD financing — Principles — Equal treatment of economic operators — Varying interpretations of EU law by Member States — Distortions of competition — Not permissible

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1306/2013; Council Regulation No 1290/2005)

(see paras 31, 79, 106)
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 — Application in the context of a loan agreement for any installments falling due and remaining unpaid after the date of the application — Hypothetical circumstances not yet established — Inadmissibility

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

(see paras 32-36)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2021 –

Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu

(Case T‑271/17)

(Arbitration clause – Grant agreement concluded in the framework of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) – Non-performance of the contract – Repayment of the amounts advanced – Default interest – Procedure by default)

Judicial proceedings – Action before the General Court – Application of the default procedure – Obligation of the Court to rule on the applicant’s pleas – Conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 123(3))

(see paras 25-27, 35)

Re:

Action brought under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order for Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu to repay the advanced payment paid under the Grant Agreement for partners No 632456, plus accrued late payment interest.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu Sas to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the amount of EUR 189 128.26, together with default interest calculated at 3.5% per annum from 7 February 2017 and until the date of full payment of the amount due;
6.

Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) on the calculation of the ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) – Opacity of the calculation of the ex ante contributions – Calculation relying in an interdependent manner on the confidential data of the other institutions – Infringement of the obligation to state reasons stemming, in respect of the part of the calculation relating to the risk adjustment, from the illegal nature, alleged by means of a plea in law, of Articles 4 to 7 and 9 of, and Annex I to, Delegated Regulation 2015/63 (Arts 296 and 277 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 806/2014, Arts 67(4) and 70(2); Commission Regulation 2015/63, Arts 4 to 7 and 9 and Annex I; European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/59, Art. 103) (see paras 95, 98, 105, 110-113, 127, 129-131)