ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
19

In the second place, the applicant maintains that, even if the Swedish consumer is taken into account and it is assumed that the term ‘vita’ is associated with an indication of colour, it is not true that the indication of colour ‘white’ has a purely descriptive meaning with regard to the goods concerned because there is, from the point of view of the relevant public, no sufficiently direct and specific link between the term ‘vita’ and the goods concerned. The applicant submits that that applies in particular to pressure cookers and pots, which are almost exclusively manufactured out of silver-coloured stainless steel and for which the colour ‘white’ is not usually used. Furthermore, it asserts that the goods concerned cannot be regarded as ‘white goods’, an expression which refers to household appliances such as fridges, freezers, dishwashers or tumble-dryers, but is not used to refer to pressure cookers, pots, pans or kitchen bowls and so forth. It maintains that the relevant public associates pressure cookers, pots, pans or kitchen bowls and so forth with silver-coloured stainless steel goods and that names of colours are irrelevant. Given that in the sector to which the goods concerned belong, the names of colours are irrelevant and the relevant public does not associate any particular colours with cooking appliances, the name of a colour, no matter which one, will also not be perceived as a characteristic of those goods. It maintains that it is therefore irrelevant that the goods concerned could also come in the colour white, because the decisive factor is rather whether the sign can be used for that purpose and whether, in the perception of the relevant public, it can be understood as an indication that describes a characteristic of those goods.
43

First, there are certain similarities between the word element of the dominant element in the sign in respect of which registration has been sought and the word element in the earlier mark relied on, namely the letter ‘v’ and the word element ‘volvo’ respectively. The first is that that letter ‘v’ coincides, in particular, with the first letter of the word element ‘volvo’. The second is that, in both cases, they are written in the same font. Even though that font is not particularly fanciful, it is nevertheless stylised and is not, as the parties confirmed at the hearing, one of the ‘standard’ fonts in word processing software programs. EUIPO does not, moreover, dispute that the font in question was designed specifically for the applicant and has been used by the applicant for many years. Furthermore, as the applicant correctly submits and contrary to what the Board of Appeal stated, the differences between the font Garamond and the font used in the signs at issue reproduced in paragraph 35 above do not lie solely in the ‘slightly thicker’ writing of the letters, but also in the fact that, unlike in the font Garamond, the letter ‘v’ in those signs is written by cutting off the lower pointed part of that letter. It must therefore be held that the same font is used for the word elements ‘v’ and ‘volvo’ in those signs, a font which is not, contrary to what the Board of Appeal stated, one of the fonts that is commonly used in the course of trade.
287

As regards the allegation that the examination carried out by the Commission was insufficient and incomplete, it is appropriate to recall, as a preliminary point, the wording of Article 14(2) to (4) of Directive 97/67, which reads as follows: ‘2. The universal service provider(s) shall keep separate accounts within their internal accounting systems in order to clearly distinguish between each of the services and products which are part of the universal service and those which are not. This accounting separation shall be used as an input when Member States calculate the net cost of the universal service. Such internal accounting systems shall operate on the basis of consistently applied and objectively justifiable cost accounting principles. 3. The accounting systems referred to in paragraph 2 shall, without prejudice to paragraph 4, allocate costs in the following manner: (a) costs which can be directly assigned to a particular service or product shall be so assigned; (b) common costs, that is costs which cannot be directly assigned to a particular service or product, shall be allocated as follows: (i) whenever possible, common costs shall be allocated on the basis of direct analysis of the origin of the costs themselves; (ii) when direct analysis is not possible, common cost categories shall be allocated on the basis of an indirect linkage to another cost category or group of cost categories for which a direct assignment or allocation is possible; the indirect linkage shall be based on comparable cost structures; (iii) when neither direct nor indirect measures of cost allocation can be found, the cost category shall be allocated on the basis of a general allocator computed by using the ratio of all expenses directly or indirectly assigned or allocated, on the one hand, to each of the universal services and, on the other hand, to the other services; (iv) common costs, which are necessary for the provision of both universal services and non-universal services, shall be allocated appropriately; the same cost drivers must be applied to both universal services and non-universal services. 4. Other cost accounting systems may be applied only if they are compatible with paragraph 2 and have been approved by the national regulatory authority. The Commission shall be informed prior to their application.’
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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 13-15)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2019 –

Idea Groupe v EUIPO — The Logistical Approach (Idealogistic Verhoeven Greatest care in getting it there)

(Case T‑29/19)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Idealogistic Verhoeven Greatest care in getting it there — Earlier national word marks idéa logistique, IDEA and groupe idea — Earlier national figurative mark iDÉA — International registrations designating the European Union — Earlier figurative mark iDÉA and earlier word mark IDEA — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Use of a sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001)

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 — Precluded (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see para. 20)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Marque figurative Idealogistic Verhoeven Greatest care in getting it there — Word marks idéa logistique, IDEA and groupe idea — Figurative marks iDÉA (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 46, 50, 72, 79-81)

3. 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 — Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72) (see para. 120)

4. Judicial proceedings — Obligation on the court to respect the framework of the dispute defined by the parties — No obligation on the court to rule solely on the basis of the arguments raised by the parties (see para. 120)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 November 2018 (Case R 2064/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Idea Groupe and The Logistical Approach.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 November 2018 (Case R 2064/2017-4);
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 May 2020 –

Koenig & Bauer v EUIPO (we’re on it)

(Case T‑156/19)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark we’re on it — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Trade mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Definition (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Marks consisting of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 27-30)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Word mark we’re on it (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 37-43, 45)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1) and 94(1), first sentence) (see paras 52-54, 60-63, 68)

5. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the EUIPO’s own motion — Registration of a new trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Burden of proof (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1) and 95(1)) (see para. 77)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2019 (Case R 1027/2018-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign we’re on it as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Officials — Contract staff — Recruitment — Probationary period — Decision to dismiss before the end of the probationary period — Obvious inadequacy — Concept — Decision to dismiss based on insufficiently serious facts — Measure manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective pursued — Breach of principle of proportionality

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 84(4))

(see paras 26-28, 43, 46-48)
1.

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Concept – Criteria for assessment – Recognition of the distinctiveness of the sign not subject to a finding of a certain level of creativity or linguistic or artistic imagination (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18, 20)
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 — 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, Arts 1(2) and 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 46)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 July 2020 –

Austria Tabak v EUIPO – Mignot & De Block (AIR)

(Case T‑800/19)

(EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – European Union word mark AIR – Genuine use of the trade mark – Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Alteration of the distinctive character)

1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Examination of the application – Proof of use of its earlier mark – Genuine use – Criteria for assessment – Requirement of solid and objective evidence (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1)(a) and 58(1)(a)) (see para. 12)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Examination of the application – Proof of use of its earlier mark – Simultaneous use of several signs (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1)(a) and 58(1)(a)) (see para. 14)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of 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)(a) and 58(1)(a)) (see paras 15, 19-23)

4. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Examination of the application – Proof of use of its earlier mark – Genuine use – Definition – Mark used solely as an element of a complex mark or in combination with another mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 18(1)(a)) (see paras 16, 17)

5. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark – Simultaneous use of several signs (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1)(a) and 58(1)(a)) (see para. 18)

6. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Word mark AIR (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1)(a) and 58(1)(a)) (see paras 32, 36-38)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 (Case R 1665/2018-4), concerning revocation proceedings between Mignot & De Block and Austria Tabak.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.
European Union 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 – Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact not previously raised before the departments of EUIPO – Precluded

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 72(2) and 95)

(see para. 120)
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 enjoying a reputation – Protection of the well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Reputation of the mark in the Member State or the EU – Meaning – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 21, 22, 50-52, 57-59, 88, 89)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 23 September 2020 –

Vincenti v EUIPO

(Case T‑174/19)

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – Promotion exercises 2014 to 2017 – Decision not to promote the applicant to the AST 8 grade – Right to be heard)

Officials – Principles – Rights of defence – Obligation to hear the person concerned before adopting a measure adversely affecting him of her – Scope – Infringement – Consequences

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

(see paras 26-31, 52-55)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 6 June 2018 not to promote the applicant to the AST 8 grade in the 2014 to 2017 promotion exercises.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decisions of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 June 2018 not to promote Mr Guillaume Vincenti to the AST 8 grade in the 2014 to 2017 promotion exercises;
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Examination of the grounds for refusal having regard to each of the products or services covered by the application for registration – Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register – Scope

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

(see paras 49, 50, 52)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2020 –

AD v ECHA

(Case T‑25/19)

(Civil service – Members of the temporary staff – Fixed-term contracts – Decision not to renew – Duty of care – Equal treatment – Manifest error of assessment – Misuse of powers – Right to be heard – Duty to state reasons – Liability)

1. Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Effect – Disputed measure referred to the Court – Exception – Decision not confirmatory in character – Account taken of the reasoning therein (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 32-34)

2. Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Recruitment – Internal directive of a Union agency relating to the renewal of fixed-term contracts – Legal effects (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 8) (see paras 38, 58)

3. Actions brought by officials – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Decision not to renew a contract – Decision separate from the contract – Included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(2)) (see para. 71)

4. Officials – Decision adversely affecting an official – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – No statement of reasons – Rectified in the response to the complaint (Art. 296 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.) (see paras 73-75)

5. Actions brought by officials – Pleas in law – Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons – Separate plea in law from the one concerning substantive legality (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.) (see para. 78)

6. 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 – Judicial review – Limits (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 8) (see paras 94, 104, 158-162)

7. Actions brought by officials – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Definition – Burden and administration of proof (see para. 103)

8. Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Recruitment – Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract – Decision adopted without first giving the interested party the opportunity to comment – Infringement of the right to be heard (see paras 125, 126, 146)

9. Actions brought by officials – Application for damages linked to an application for annulment – Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 184)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking (i) annulment, in substance, first, of ECHA’s decision of 28 March 2018 not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term contract and, second, of the vacancy notice for the establishment of a reserve list for the recruitment of contract staff for function group II published on 9 March 2018 and (ii) compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of 28 March 2018 and the vacancy notice of 9 March 2018.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 2020 –

Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO – Helixor Heilmittel (HELIX ELIXIR)

(Case T‑883/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark HELIX ELIXIR – Earlier EU word mark HELIXOR – 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 19, 20, 67)

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 – Medicinal products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 28-30, 32)

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. 34)

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 of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 53)

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 – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 45)

6. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks HELIX ELIXIR and HELIXOR (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 52, 64, 71)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 (Case R 100/2019-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Helixor Heilmittel and Gustopharma Consumer Health.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
6.

Officials – Vacancy – Consideration of the comparative merits of candidates – Administration’s discretion – Resumption of the procedure following the annulment of the appointment decision by the Courts of the European Union – Taking into account of the experience and qualifications acquired by the candidates during the period between the two vacancy notices – Whether permissible (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 7 and 29) (see para. 93)
Officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Remuneration – Annual adjustment of the basic salary scale – Administration’s discretion – Adoption of a decision on the matter – Consequences – Limitation of its own discretion

(Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 20, para. 1, and Annex I; Rules of Procedure of the European Investment Bank, Art. 31)

(see paras 42-45, 55)