ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 June 2021 –

Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO – Huawei Technologies (GT9)

(Case T‑423/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark GT9 – Earlier EU figurative mark GT – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Relevant public – Level of attention – Action manifestly well founded)

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 28, 29)

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 enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 31)

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 – 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 paras 34-37)

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 mark GT 9 and figurative mark GT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42-46)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 (Case R 1610/2019 4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe and Huawei Technologies.

Operative part

1. The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 April 2020 (Case R 1610/2019-4) is annulled.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2021 –

Grupa Azoty and Others v Commission

(Case T‑726/20)

(Action for annulment – State aid – Guidelines on certain State aid measures in the context of the system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading post-2021 – Eligible sectors – Exclusion of the fertiliser manufacturing sector – Lack of direct concern – Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Guidelines on certain State aid in the context of the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system, including limitation of eligible sectors – Actions brought by companies in a non-eligible sector – Not directly concerned – Inadmissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Notice 2020/C 317/04)

(see paras 26, 28-44, 47-50)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application to intervene submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

3. Grupa Azoty S.A., Azomureș S.A. and Lipasmata Kavalas LTD Ypokatastima Allodapis shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Competition – Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and national competition authorities – Commission Notice on Cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities – Obligation of the Commission to deal with a complaint already rejected for reasons other than the examination of the substance by a national competition authority – None – Infringement of the principle of sound administration – Not included

(Arts 101, 102 and 105(1) TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights, Art. 41(1); Council Regulation No 1/2003, Recital 37, Arts 5(2) and 13(2); Commission Notice 2004/C 101/03, Section 22)

(see paras 46-53, 64-67)
62

Furthermore, it must be stated, in any event, that the applicant could have sent the documents necessary to complete the opening of its e-Curia account to the Registry of the General Court after the documents referred to in paragraph 59 above had been lodged. The conditions of use of the e-Curia application, adopted by the Registry of the General Court on the basis, in particular, of Article 8 of the Decision of the General Court of 11 July 2018 on the lodging and service of procedural documents by means of e-Curia (OJ 2018 L 240, p. 72), provide for a special procedure which enables an account on e-Curia to be opened provisionally in order for the procedural documents to be lodged with the General Court. Thus, where a representative who fulfils the conditions for opening an account has not taken the requisite steps to open it in good time before the expiry of the time limit for lodging a procedural document with the General Court, it is possible for that representative to open an account on a provisional basis in order to lodge that document under the special procedure. In that regard, in order for the creation of that account to be validated by the Registry of the General Court, the representative must send it the documents required in order to complete the creation of the account within 10 days of the date on which the procedural document was lodged via e-Curia.
Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

(Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 17-20)
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 –

Kewazo v EUIPO (Liftbot)

(Case T‑205/21)

(EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark Liftbot – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

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 – Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign – Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 15-17)

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 – Word mark Liftbot (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 27, 35, 37, 40)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 February 2021 (Case R 1160/2020–5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Liftbot as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

(Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 13, 16, 17)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 February 2022 –

Lagardère, unité médico-sociale v Commission

(Case T‑503/21)

(Action for annulment – Regulation (EU) 2021/953 – EU Digital Covid-19 Certificate – Freedom of movement for persons – Restrictions – Incorrect designation of the defendant – Inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the defendant – Erroneous designation as defendant of a person other than the author of the contested measure – Inadmissibility – Limits – Factors allowing the defendant to be identified without difficulty – None – No obligation on the part of the General Court to identify the party against whom the application is made

(Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76, first para., (c))

(see paras 16-21)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

3. Lagardère, unité médico-sociale, shall pay the costs.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 November 2021 –

Amort and Others v Commission

(Case T‑267/21)

(Action for annulment – Medicinal products for human use – Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use ‘COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen – COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2-S [recombinant])’ – No interest in bringing proceedings – Lack of direct concern – Lack of individual concern – Non-regulatory act – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought by an applicant who is not an addressee of the contested act – Admissibility – Condition – Measure producing binding legal effects vis-à-vis the applicant – Commission decision granting a conditional marketing authorisation for a COVID-19 vaccine – Measure not bringing about a change in the applicant’s legal position – No interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 25-29, 34, 35)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Commission decision granting a conditional marketing authorisation for a COVID-19 vaccine – Applicant not directly affected (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 37-39, 44, 45, 48)

3. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision granting a conditional marketing authorisation for a COVID-19 vaccine – Action brought by individuals relying on a violation of fundamental rights – Not individually concerned (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 49-53)

4. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Concept of ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Any measure of general application other than legislative acts – Commission decision granting a conditional marketing authorisation for a COVID-19 vaccine – Precluded (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 54, 55)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 1763 (final) of 11 March 2021 granting a conditional marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen – COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2-S [recombinant])’, a medicinal product for human use, as amended and supplemented.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by TF, TG, TH and TI, by TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II and by VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II.

3. Ms Heidi Amort and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex I shall pay the costs.
4.

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Assessment of the registrability of a sign – Solely EU rules taken into account – Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries – Decisions not binding EU bodies (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 33)
Proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 11-14)
Order of the President of the General Court of 30 November 2021 –

ID and Others v Parliament

(Case T‑711/21 R)

(Application for interim measures – Civil service – Conditions of access to the European Parliament buildings at its three places of work related to the health crisis – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Damage resulting from a decision governing access by staff to the buildings of an institution – Decisive cause of the damage arising from the refusal of an applicant to present a COVID certificate or equivalent – No urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 21-24)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Need to pleas the risk of suffering that damage personally (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see para. 31)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 27 October 2021 on exceptional health and safety rules governing access to the European Parliament buildings at its three places of work.

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.

2. The order of 5 November 2021, ID and Others v Parliament (T‑711/21 R) is cancelled.
Order of the President of the General Court of 11 February 2022 –

Rivière v Parliament and ID

(Case T‑54/22 R)

(Interim relief – Law governing the institutions – Member of the Parliament – Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his political group – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Failure to comply with procedural requirements – Inadmissibility)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 6-8)

2. Interim relief – Formal requirements – Submission of applications – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Insufficient explanation of the grounds constituting a prima facie case – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d) and 156(5)) (see paras 9-12)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Obligation to provide concrete and precise information, supported by detailed documentary evidence – Need to provide a true overall picture of the situation – Lack of evidence – Inadmissibility (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 15-20)

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 18 May 2022 –

OG and Others v Commission

(Case T‑101/22 R)

(Interim Relief – Regulation (EU) 2021/953 – Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 – EU Digital COVID certificate – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency)

Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Prima facie case – Sufficient in the case of a particularly serious prima facie case constituted by an obvious and serious illegality – Obligation to demonstrate imminent serious and irreparable harm – Exception – Presence of very special circumstances

(Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see para. 24)

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96/20

Action brought on 22 February 2006 — Kendrion v Commission

(Case T-54/06)

(2006/C 96/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kendrion N.V. (Zeist, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Glazener and C.C. Meijer, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside in whole or in part the decision addressed to the applicant, inter alios;

— set aside or reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging the Commission Decision of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case No COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), in which the applicant was held to be guilty of infringing the rules on competition and ordered to pay a fine.

In support of its action the applicant alleges breach of Article 81 EC, Article 253 EC and Article 15(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, on the ground that the operative part of the decision is inconsistent with its grounds. The applicant submits that, while it is not accused in the grounds of the contested decision of individual participation in the breach, it is accused in the operative part of breaching Article 81 EC.

The applicant goes on to submit that there has been a breach of Article 81 EC, Article 253 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 by reason of the fact that the Commission wrongly assumed that the applicant and Fardem Packaging B.V. formed a single economic unit, with the result that the applicant was unjustly fined as a result of a breach by Fardem Packaging.

The applicant submits that the Commission also breached Article 81 EC, Article 253 EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 and infringed general principles of law, including the duty of care, the prohibition of arbitrary action, and the principles of equality and proportionality.

The applicant goes on to submit that the Commission held the applicant liable for a breach committed by Fardem Packaging, contrary to other Commission decisions in which the parent company was not held liable. Furthermore, the applicant, in its capacity as parent company, incurred a fine in excess of that for which the subsidiary, which committed the breach, was held jointly and severally liable. The applicant claims further that it was treated in a manner different to the other parent companies held jointly and severally liable for breaches committed by their subsidiaries. The fine imposed on the applicant also amounts, it argues, to an infringement of the principle of proportionality and the duty of care.

The applicant concludes by alleging a breach of the guidelines for the calculation of fines, in particular as Article 5(b) of those guidelines was not applied. The applicant submits that the Commission failed to take proper account of the specific characteristics of the undertaking.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/30

Action brought on 23 June 2006 — ARBOS v Commission

(Case T-161/06)

(2006/C 212/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant(s): ARBOS, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater (Klagenfurt, Austria) (represented by: H. Karl, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Order that the defendant pay the claimant EUR 38 545,42 plus 12 % interest since 1.1.2001 and EUR 27 618,91 plus 12 % interest since 1.3.2003;

— Order that the defendant pay the claimant EUR 26 459,38 in pre-litigation costs and bear the costs of the proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant claims compensation from the European Commission under Article 288 EC for the damage it claims to have suffered from the wrongful withholding of assistance. It bases its claim on two contracts for assistance concluded in 2000 in 2002 and each containing an arbitration clause in the annex.
3.

In support of its action for annulment of the decision of 1 December 2006, Movimondo puts forward five pleas in law. By the first plea, the applicant alleges infringement of provisions of law in relation to Articles 93, 96 and 114 of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, and raises a plea of illegality in respect of Articles 133 and 175 of Commission Regulation 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 on the ground that they infringe Article 183 of Council Regulation No 2988/1995 of 18 December 1995. By the second plea, the applicant alleges that the Commission made an erroneous and incomplete assessment of the factual basis for the allegations against the applicant, and maintains that there was no conclusive evidence on which to base the decision imposing a penalty. By the third plea, the applicant alleges breach of the general principle of audi alteram partem. By the fourth plea, the applicant alleges an error of assessment of the facts on which the penalty was based and attribution in relation to the applicant of non-existent circumstances. At the same time, it alleges breach of the principle of proportionality and failure properly to state the grounds for its decision as regards the ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature ’[of the penalty] as required under Article 114 of Regulation No 1605/2002 (the Financial Regulation). Lastly, by the fifth plea, the applicant alleges, first, that the projects constituting a sine qua non for the contested decision are of wholly indeterminate nature, and that the decision is time-barred. At the same time, it maintains that there is no Community act which provides for such a penalty and alleges infringement of Articles 2(2) and 3(1) of Council Regulation No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995. Secondly, it alleges infringement of Articles 175 and 133 of Commission Regulation No 2342/2002.