ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
7.

Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Belarus — Freezing of funds of certain persons and bodies in view of the situation in Belarus — Obligation to extend that measure to entities owned or controlled by such an entity — Conditions — Acts instituting restrictive measures providing for the application of the latter to the said owned or controlled entities — Names of persons and entities holding or controlling the entities concerned having to be validly entered in the list of persons concerned by the restrictive measures (Council Decisions 2010/639/CFSP, 2012/642/CFSP, 2012/171/CFSP and 2014/750/CFSP; Council Regulations No 765/2006, No 265/2012, No 1017/2012 and No 1159/2014) (see paras 133-137, 147, 148, 184, 185, 188)
149

In that regard, first, since the interest of an undertaking on which the Commission has imposed a fine for an infringement of competition law in the details of the unlawful conduct of which it is accused not being disclosed to the public does not, in principle, warrant any particular protection (see paragraph 107 above), the applicant cannot claim such protection on the pretext that it must benefit from a special position before the national courts by comparison with undertakings which did not demonstrate the same degree of cooperation with the Commission. Next, in so far as the published decision sets out the facts on which each of its addressees was found to be liable for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, the applicant is not placed at a disadvantage in that respect by comparison with the other participants in the infringement. Last, it must be borne in mind that the applicant’s cooperation with the Commission as described at paragraph 2 above led to complete immunity from a fine, which is the normal consequence according to the 2002 Leniency Notice. In any case, the applicant has adduced no evidence to show that the publication of the information in respect of which it seeks confidential treatment in the present case, which deals with the functioning of the cartel as a whole, would place it at a disadvantage by comparison with other undertakings to which the PHP Decision was addressed in the context of actions for damages. It follows that there is no inconsistency between the position thus adopted, which, moreover, is reflected in the observations submitted before the High Court of Justice in November 2011, referred to at paragraph 144 above, and the point of view put forward by the Commission in the present case.
72

At paragraph 2.3.6 of the Practical Guide, referred to in the letter of 10 August 2012, the concept of conflict of interests is explained as follows: ‘Conflict of interest: Conflict of interest occurs when the impartial and objective exercise of the functions of the Contracting Authority, or respect for the principles of competition, non-discrimination or equality of treatment of candidates/tenderers/applicants/contractors with regards to the award procedure or contract, is compromised for reasons involving family, emotional life, political or national affinity, economic interest or any other shared interest with the beneficiary of EU funded programmes. A conflict of interest may therefore arise where, for instance, an individual participating in the procedure (Evaluation Committee, Contracting Authority, etc.) may grant itself or others unjustified direct or indirect advantages by influencing the outcome of such procedures; or where an expert/company [has] the opportunity to obtain privileged information leading to unfair competition in subsequent or related procedures. For instance, any firm or expert participating in the preparation of a project (for example, drafting of the Terms of Reference) must be, as a rule, excluded from participating in tenders based on this preparatory work, unless [it] can prove to the Contracting Authority that the involvement in previous stages of the project does not constitute unfair competition. Candidates/tenderers/applicants in a position of conflict of interests in relation to a contract award/grant award procedure must be excluded from the concerned procedure. The reasons for the exclusion have to be analysed on a case by case basis. Pursuant to constant case-law by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the exclusion should be based on an actual risk of conflict based on the specific circumstances of the case in question. An automatic exclusion deprives the candidate/tenderer/applicant of the right to present supporting evidence which might remove all suspicion of a conflict of interest. …’
1.

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 paras 20-22)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Examination by reference to the perception of the sign by the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(f)) (see paras 12, 18-20)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Word mark FICKEN (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(f)) (see paras 13-34)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(f)) (see para. 16)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2012 (Case R 493/2012-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign FICKEN as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Efag Trade Mark Company GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 1 July 2014 — You-View.tv v OHIM — YouView TV (YouView+)

(Case T‑480/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark YouView+ — Earlier Benelux figurative trade mark You View You-View.tv — Late submission of documents — Discretion granted by Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Concept of a ‘provision to the contrary’ — Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Declaratory judgments — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 15)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction issued to the Office — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 17)

3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 20(1)) (see paras 24, 25)

4. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Interest in bringing proceedings — Circumscribed powers of the Office — No interest (see para. 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2013 (Case R 2112/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between You-View.tv and YouView TV Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 June 2013 (Case R 2112/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between You-View.tv and YouView TV Ltd;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the heads of claim;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community designs — Conditions for protection — Design constituting a component part of a complex product — Component part having to remain visible during normal use of the product in order to be regarded as new and individual in character

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, recital 12 and Art. 4(2)(a))

2. Community designs — Conditions for protection — Design constituting a component part of a complex product — Component part having to remain visible during normal use of the product in order to be regarded as new and individual in character — Not possible to assess the conditions by means of a comparison with an invisible earlier design as a component part of a complex product

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 4(2)(a))

Summary

1. Under Article 4(2)(a) of Regulation No 6/2002, a design which constitutes a component part of a complex product is not to be considered to be new or to have individual character unless that component part, once it has been incorporated into the complex product, remains visible during normal use of the latter.

Visibility is an essential criterion for the protection of Community designs: recital 12 in the preamble to Regulation No 6/2002 states that protection should not be extended to those component parts which are not visible during normal use of a product; nor should it be extended to any features of such a part which are not visible when the part is mounted.

(see paras 36, 40)

2. Since a design constituting a component part of a complex product which is not visible during normal use of that complex product cannot be protected under Article 4(2)(a) of Regulation No 6/2002, it must be held, by analogy, that the novelty and individual character of a Community design cannot be assessed by comparing that design with an earlier design which, as a component part of a complex product, is not visible during normal use of that product. Therefore, the criterion of visibility as set out in recital 12 to Regulation No 6/2002 applies to the earlier design.

(see paras 51, 52)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2014 —

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma v OHIM — Nepentes Pharma (Momarid)

(Case T‑75/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Momarid — Earlier Community word mark LONARID — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relevant public — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see para. 22)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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, 31, 90)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public — Medicinal products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 41, 42)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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. 53)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 79)

6. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 Momarid and LONARID (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 92-96)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2012 (Case R 2292/2011‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG and Nepentes S.A.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2012 (Case R 2292/2011‑4) as regards ‘chemicals for pharmaceutical use’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

10 October 2014

Case T‑444/13 P

European Medicines Agency (EMA)

v

BU

(Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Non-renewal decision — Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal — Article 8, first paragraph, of the CEOS — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff)

Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013, BU v EMA (F‑135/11, F‑51/12 and F‑110/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:93) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by BU in the present proceedings.

Summary

Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Renewal of a fixed-term contract — Administration’s discretion — Judicial review — Limits

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 8)

The possibility of renewing the contract of a member of the temporary staff is merely an option left to the discretion of the competent authority, since the institutions have a broad discretion to organise their departments to suit the tasks entrusted to them and to assign the staff available to them in the light of such tasks, on condition that the staff are assigned in the interest of the service.

When the competent authority takes a decision concerning the situation of a staff member, it must take into consideration all the factors which may affect its decision, that is to say, not just the interests of the service, but also, in particular, those of the staff member concerned. That is a consequence of the administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of its staff, which reflects the balance of the reciprocal rights and obligations established by the Staff Regulations and, by analogy, the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, in the relationship between the official authority and its staff.

In any event, in view of the broad discretion conferred on the institutions in that context, review by the courts is limited to ascertaining that there has been no manifest error or misuse of powers.

(see para. 28)

See:

judgment of 29 June 1994 in Klinke v Court of Justice, C‑298/93 P, ECR, EU:C:1994:273, para. 38

judgments of 18 April 1996 in Kyrpitsis v ESC, T‑13/95, ECR-SC, EU:T:1996:50, para. 52; 15 October 2008 in Potamianos v Commission, T‑160/04, ECR-SC, EU:T:2008:438, para. 30; and 8 September 2009 in ETF v Landgren, T‑404/06 P, ECR, EU:T:2009:313, para. 162 and the case-law cited therein
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 February 2015 —

Innovation First v OHIM (NANO)

(Case T‑379/13)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark NANO — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see para. 14)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 27)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 paras 39, 40)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 paras 40-42)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Word mark NANO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 44, 54, 58-63)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 April 2013 (Case R 1271/2012-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign NANO as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchangers)

(Case T‑615/13)

‛Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger — Ground for invalidity — Lack of visibility of part of a complex product — Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002’

1. Community designs — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Action for invalidity — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 63(1)) (see paras 22, 23)

2. Community designs — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 6/2002) (see para. 28)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 291/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between ACV Manufacturing and Aic S.A.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 4 February 2015 —

KSR v OHIM — Lampenwelt (Moon)

(Case T‑374/13)

‛Community trade mark — Proceedings seeking a declaration of invalidity — Community word mark Moon — Absolute ground for invalidity — Descriptive nature — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Judicial proceedings — Representation of the parties — Possibility of remedying lack of mandate to bring an action by subsequent production of any document confirming the existence of such a mandate (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(5)(b), and (6)) (see paras 10, 12, 13)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 21)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Word mark Moon (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(c),and (2), and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 24-38)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — Account to be taken only of Community legislation — Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries — Decisions not binding Community bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009; European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95; Council Directive 89/104) (see para. 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2013 (Case R 676/2012-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Lampenwelt GmbH & Co. KG and KSR Kunststoff Rotation GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 2015 —

Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY)

(Joined Cases T‑707/13 and T‑709/13)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word marks BE HAPPY — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21, 25, 38, 44, 52)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Not permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 42, 56)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Slogan carrying an objective message (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 57)

4. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Registration contrary to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Word mark BE HAPPY (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(b), and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 27-30, 34, 35, 47, 48)

5. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see paras 64, 65)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 October 2013 (Cases R 31/2013-1 and R 32/2013-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG and Steinbeck GmbH.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;