ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2021 –

Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu

(Case T‑318/17)

(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 22-24, 32)

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 325940, 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 359 913.75, together with default interest calculated at 3.5% per annum from 31 January 2017 and until the date of full payment of the amount due;
38

That is the conclusion that must be drawn having regard to the divergence of the expressions used by the EU legislature in the first and second sentences of Article 82(7) of the CEOS. In the first sentence, the EU legislature states that the contract agents in question ‘peuvent être autorisés’ [in French] — ‘podrá autorizarse’ in Spanish, ‘kann … erteilt werden’ in German, ‘may be authorised’ in English, ‘possono essere autorizzati’ in Italian, ‘może być upoważniony’ in Polish and ‘podem ser autorizados’ in Portuguese — to take part in internal competitions if they show that they have completed at least three years of service. In the second sentence, however, the EU legislature does not mention any authorisation. On the contrary, it entitles contract agents in Function Group IV to take part in the competitions for grades AST 1 to AST 4 and AD 5 and AD 6, without extending that access to competitions for the other grades. In that regard, although the French version uses an expression in the negative ‘ne peuvent prendre part qu’aux concours’, the same idea is expressed in the affirmative in other language versions: ‘solo tendrán acceso’ in Spanish, ‘haben Zugang … nur für’ in German, ‘may have access only’ in English, ‘possono partecipare unicamente’ in Italian, ‘może mieć dostęp jedynie’ in Polish and ‘apenas podem ter acesso’ in Portuguese.
19

Next, as regards the argument claiming that the facts invoked by the applicant before the Court are well known, it is clear from the case-law that, first, the bodies of EUIPO may base their decisions on well-known facts which have not been put forward by the applicant, without having to establish the accuracy of such facts, and, second, an applicant against whom EUIPO relies on such well-known facts may challenge their accuracy before the Court (judgment of 22 June 2006, Storck v OHIM, C‑25/05 P, EU:C:2006:422, paragraphs 50 to 52), EUIPO thus being, in such a situation and with regard to the principle of equality of arms, entitled to present documents to the Court in order to support the accuracy of a matter of common knowledge which was not established in the contested decision (judgment of 10 November 2011, LG Electronics v OHIM, C‑88/11 P, not published, EU:C:2011:727, paragraph 29). By contrast, the applicant cannot be recognised as having the right to submit documents for the first time before the Court on the sole ground that they illustrate well-known facts which, moreover, are not alleged to have been put forward in the contested decision (see, to that effect, order of 17 July 2014, MOL v OHIM, C‑468/13 P, not published, EU:C:2014:2116, paragraph 42, and judgment of 5 February 2016, Kicktipp v OHIM — Italiana Calzature (kicktipp), T‑135/14, EU:T:2016:69, paragraphs 113 and 114). Allowing such a right would limit the scope of the applicant’s obligation to provide, from the stage of the proceedings before EUIPO, all evidence in support of its pleas in law and arguments. In the present case, by the applicant’s very admission, the allegedly well-known fact that potato crisps are a dried, cooked and preserved vegetable had already been put forward by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, with the documents presented for the first time to the Court, for the most part and according to the applicant’s words, constituting a ‘complement’ to the evidence already submitted.
83

In the present case, it is common ground that the fees applied to JSIS members, which are set out in the scale of fees adopted on the basis of the 1996 Agreement, are considerably higher than those applied to CNS members. In fact, a CNS member who receives oxygen therapy in a hyperbaric chamber will not be invoiced for the fixed costs associated with that treatment, since those costs are covered by the hospital’s overall budget, irrespective of the treatment that member receives. Conversely, a JSIS member in receipt of the same treatment will receive an invoice from the hospital for the amount indicated on the scale of fees, which includes both the variable costs and the fixed costs. Therefore, the 1996 Agreement establishes a charging system whereby a patient who is a JSIS member must bear both the variable costs and the fixed costs associated with that treatment, whereas, in the national health system, members are not invoiced for any costs in association with the same treatment. As a result of that difference in the system, CNS members do not have to pay anything for a session of oxygen therapy treatment in a hyperbaric chamber, whereas JSIS members are charged EUR 568 per session. The amount that the hospital charges to a patient who is a JSIS member is thus considerably higher than the amount applicable for the same treatment to a patient who is a CNS member, and that amount is covered in full by the CNS. It is apparent from the Commission’s answer to the questions asked by the General Court that the calculation of the cost of the services is not based on fees which are sufficiently close to the actual costs, or on the actual medical profiles of patients who are JSIS members. It should therefore be found that the applicant has been treated unfavourably compared with CNS members.
55

The methodological tools used by the applicant were intended only to ensure that the CT2s were negotiated successfully and to monitor the costs actually incurred by the final beneficiaries. In particular, the applicant states in its written pleadings that the methodological tools used prior to setting the amount of the C2 portion of the contributions paid enabled a cost analysis to be carried out for each of the subsidised networks during the negotiations on the CT2s. However, it does not demonstrate that those tools would have enabled it to ensure that the amount of compensation paid to the final beneficiaries satisfied the requirements laid down in the fourth Altmark criterion. As regards the ex post monitoring system put in place by the applicant to ensure the productivity and quality of the service provided by the final beneficiaries, that system is not relevant when investigating whether the amount of the C2 portion of the contributions paid prior to that monitoring was set on the basis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well-run and adequately equipped so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred.
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 not sufficiently clear and precise — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see para. 19)
3.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weighing elements of similarity or difference between the signs — Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 60)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 May 2019 –

J. García Carrión v EUIPO — Codorníu (JAUME CODORNÍU)

(Case T‑358/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark JAUME CODORNÍU — Earlier Spanish and EU word marks JAUME SERRA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Distinctive character of a first name and a surname)

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 27, 28, 82)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 50, 51)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark JAUME CODORNÍU and word marks JAUME SERRA (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 81, 85-88)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 92)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Link between the marks (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 95, 96)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2018 (Case R 451/2017-4) relating to opposition proceedings between J. García Carrión and Codorníu.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 — Tomasz KawałkoTrofeum v EUIPO — Ferrero (KINDERPRAMS)

(Case T‑115/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark KINDERPRAMS — Earlier national figurative marks Kinder — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity or similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20-22, 62, 63)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

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 — Complementary nature of the goods or services (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33)

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 — Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 43)

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 — Word mark KINDERPRAMS and figurative marks Kinder (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 66, 67)

Re

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2017 (Case R 1112/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero and Tomasz Kawałko Trofeum.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Similar requirements for submissions made in support of a plea

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para., and Art. 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see para. 51)
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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 39)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2019 –

Germany v Commission

(Case T‑53/18)

(Approximation of laws — Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 — Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 — Construction products — Harmonised standards EN 13341:2005 + A1:2011 and EN 12285-2:2005 — Obligation to state reasons)

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope

(Art. 296, 2nd para. TFEU)

(see paras 22-24)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of, first, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1995 of 6 November 2017 to maintain in the Official Journal of the European Union the reference of harmonised standard EN 13341:2005 + A1:2011 on static thermoplastic tanks for above-ground storage of domestic heating oils, kerosene and diesel fuels in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 288, p. 36) and, second, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1996 of 6 November 2017 to maintain in the Official Journal of the European Union the reference of harmonised standard EN 12285-2:2005 on Workshop fabricated steel tanks in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 288, p. 39).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2019 –

Intercept Pharma and Intercept Pharmaceuticals v EMA

(Case T‑377/18)

(Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by EMA containing information submitted by the applicants in the context of the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Ocaliva — Decision to grant a third party access to a document — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings)

1. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of court proceedings — Scope — Documents not drawn up solely for the purposes of court proceedings and unlikely adversely to affect the capacity of the author of those documents to defend itself in those proceedings — Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), 2nd indent) (see paras 25-35, 39-42)

2. EU institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of commercial interests — Refusal to grant access — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), 1st indent) (see paras 52-55)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of EMA decision ASK-40399 of 15 May 2018, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to a document containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Ocaliva.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
3.

Officials — Members of the contract staff — Administration's duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Principle of sound administration — Scope — Limits — Rejection by an official in function group IV of an offer to extend his contract — Obligation of the administration to inform him of the consequences of such rejection on his right to unemployment benefit — None (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Arts 28a, 80, 82(2)(c) and 96) (see paras 43, 44, 49-52, 54)
EU budget — Financial regulation — Recovery of debts due to the Union from third parties — Obtaining an enforceable decision — Discretion of the Commission

(Council Regulation No 1268/2012, Arts 80(2) and (3)(f) and 89)

(see para. 59)
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 — 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. 20)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2019 –

La Caixa v EUIPO — Imagic Vision (imagin bank)

(Case T‑761/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark imagin bank — Earlier national figurative mark imagic — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — 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 — Direction issued to the Office — Precluded (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(6)) (see para. 16)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-27)

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 imagin bank and imagic (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 39, 45, 51-54)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 October 2018 (Case R 1954/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Imagic Vision and Fundación bancaria caixa d’estalvis i pensions de Barcelona La Caixa.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 October 2018 (Case R 1954/2017-4);
EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Limitation of the list of products and services after the decision of the Board of Appeal — Consequences

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 49(1))

(see paras 14-16)
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. 50)