ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
In order to ascertain the product in which a contested design is intended to be incorporated or to which it is intended to be applied, the relevant indication in the application for registration of that design should be taken into account, but also, where necessary, the design itself, in so far as it makes clear the nature of the product, its intended purpose or its function.

In the present case, the contested design, registered as ornamentation in Class 32 of the Locarno Agreement Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs, does not provide any information with regard to its intended purpose or function. Furthermore, the Chanel monogram is registered in respect of a very large number of products and the contested design is registered as ornamentation, without any information regarding the products to which that ornamentation is intended to be applied. It follows that, in the present case, it was not possible to establish the sector to which the products in which the design was intended to be incorporated or to which it was intended to be applied belong or to compare it with that of the Chanel monogram.

Consequently, the Board of Appeal was right in finding that the product to which the contested design was intended to be applied was ornamentation. The Board of Appeal was not required to identify the product to which that ornamentation was intended to be applied.

(see paras 41-44)
Agriculture–EAGF and EAFRD financing–Grant of aid and premiums–Obligation on the Member States to organise an effective system of administrative and on-site inspections–Two types of checks independent in character–Possibility to substitute on-the-spot checks with administrative checks–Condition–Equivalent nature of the checks–Checks carried out in the context of the milk quota scheme and on-the-spot checks under Regulation No 73/2009–Not equivalent

(Council Regulation No73/2009, Arts 20 and 68(4)(b); Commission Regulations No 595/2004, Arts 21 and 22(1)(a), and No 1122/2009, Art. 30(2)(b), second para., and 46(1) and (2))

(see paras 47-49, 51, 52, 56-59, 61, 63-65)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2017 — Ellinikos Syndesmos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 v EUIPO — 520 Barcode Hellas (520Barcode Hellas)

(Case T‑453/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark 520Barcode Hellas — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Identification of the nature of the sign cited in opposition — Other earlier sign 520 — Identification of the goods and services on which the opposition is based)

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade—Conditions—Interpretation in the light of EU law—Assessment by reference to the criteria determined by the national law governing the sign relied on (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see para. 29)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade—Figurative mark 520Barcode Hellas and other earlier sign 520 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(4)) (see paras 65, 84, 98, 99)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2016 (Case R 238/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ellinikos Syndesmos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 and 520 Barcode Hellas — AE Diacheirisis Diethnon Protypon kai Parochis Symvouleutikon Ypiresion.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 June 2016 (Case R 238/2015-4);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Ellinikos Syndesmos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1; and
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 23 October 2017 – Galletas Gullón v EUIPO – O2 Holdings (Shape of a packet of biscuits)

(Case T-418/16)

(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a packet of biscuits — Declaration of revocation — Extent of use — No alteration of distinctive character)

1. 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–General reference to documents annexed to the application–Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2)) (see paras 15, 16)

2. 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 15(1), second subpara., (a), of Regulation No 207/2009–Examination of alteration of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1), second para.,(a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 26, 27)

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–Three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of a packet of biscuits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1)(a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 29-34)

4. EU trade mark–Surrender, revocation and invalidity–Causes of revocation–Absence of genuine use of a trade mark–Proof of use of the earlier mark–Genuine use–Meaning–Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a)) (see paras 38-44, 51, 60, 62, 63)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 (Case R 1614/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between O2 Holdings Ltd and Galletas Gullón.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 May 2016 (Case R 1614/2015-4), relating to revocation proceedings between O2 Holdings Ltd and Galletas Gullón;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 November 2017 — von Blumenthal and Others v EIB

(Case T‑558/16)

(Civil Service — Staff of the EIB — Reform of the system of remuneration and salary progression — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — Liability)

1. Judicial proceedings—Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings—Conditions—Amplification of an existing plea (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d) and 84(1) and (2)) (see paras 46, 47)

2. Plea of illegality—Scope—Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded—General measure providing the basis of the contested decision—Need for a legal connection between the contested measure and the contested general measure (Art. 277 TFEU) (see paras 69, 70)

3. Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Clear and precise statement of the pleas relied on (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see paras 90, 91, 93)

4. Officials—Equal treatment—Meaning (see para. 94)

Re:

APPLICATION on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, firstly, annulment of the decisions, contained in the salary statements of April 2015 and thereafter, to apply to the applicants the decision of the Board of Directors of the defendant of 16 December 2014 and the decision of the Management Committee of the defendant of 4 February 2015, and of the notices drawn up in April 2015 concerning the performance rewards and, secondly, an order that the EIB pay the applicants, firstly, the difference between the remuneration resulting from the decisions cited above and that due in accordance with the obligations of the EIB and, secondly, damages in respect of the pecuniary harm, as a result of the loss of purchasing power, allegedly suffered by the applicants and compensation for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered by the applicants.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 November 2017 – Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO – Sharma (NRIM Life Sciences)

(Case T-909/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark NRIM Life Sciences — Earlier national word mark RYM — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2001))

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 18, 19, 43)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23-26)

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–Assessment of the distinctiveness of an element composing a trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27-29)

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 marks NRIM Life Sciences and RYM (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 44-47)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 (Case R‑2376/2015-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Mr Sharma.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 December 2017 – RRTec v EUIPO – Mobotec (RROFA)

(Case T-912/16)

(European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark RROFA — Prior EU word mark ROFA — 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, 49)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 56)

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–Figurative mark RROFA and word mark ROFA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 41-48, 55)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

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–Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 (Case R 2392/2015-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Mobotec and RRTec.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 November 2017 — Ciarko v EUIPO — Maan (cooker hood)

(Case T‑684/16)

(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a cooker hood — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — No different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

1. Community designs—Ground for invalidity—No individual character—Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design—Informed user—Meaning (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 48)

2. Community designs—Ground for invalidity—No individual character—Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design—Criteria for assessment—Creative licence (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 26-27)

3. Community designs—Ground for invalidity—No individual character—Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design—General tendency in design matters—Irrelevant (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 30)

4. Community designs—Ground for invalidity—No individual character—Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design—Global assessment of all the elements of the prior design (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 39, 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2016 (Case R 1212/2015-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between Maan and Ciarko spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Ciarko spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością sp.k. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);
For an action brought by an official or retired official against the institution by which he is or was employed to be admissible, it is a necessary condition that there be an act adversely affecting him within the meaning of Article 90(2) and Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations. Measures the legal effects of which are binding on and capable of affecting, directly and immediately, the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position are acts which may be the subject of an action for annulment preceded by a complaint.

As regards salary statements, they may constitute acts having an adverse effect and may be the subject of a complaint and ultimately an action. That is so where a decision the subject matter of which is purely financial is liable, due to its nature, to be reflected in such a salary or pension statement. In that case, notification of the monthly salary or pension statement has the effect of setting time running for the purposes of the time limits for making a complaint and bringing an action, against an administrative decision, where the fact and scope of that decision become apparent, clearly and for the first time, from that statement. That is particularly the case in situations where the rights affected, following, for example, the amendment of a measure of general application, are essentially or purely financial in nature. In such a case, the cessation of a payment or a reduction in its amount, which will be apparent from the salary or pension statement following the amendment, can only result from a decision of the competent service to apply the measure of general application to the official or retired member of staff concerned.

However, a salary or pension statement, by its nature and purpose, does not have the characteristics of an act adversely affecting an official where it merely expresses in financial terms the effect of earlier legal decisions concerning the administrative situation of the official or retired official, or in other words, where it is apparent that it is merely confirmatory of those prior administrative decisions. In particular, if the salary statement showing, clearly and for the first time, a purely financial decision constitutes an actionable measure, the salary statements for subsequent months constitute acts which are purely confirmatory of that decision and cannot be the subject of an action for annulment.

(see paras 30-35)
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; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 43(1))

(see paras 20-22)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2017 — Trautmann v EEAS

(Case T‑611/16)

(Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Conditions for grant — Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Regular full-time attendance at an educational establishment which charges fees — Article 85 of the Staff Regulations — Recovery of sums overpaid — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard)

1. Officials—Principles—Rights of defence—Obligation to hear the person concerned before adopting a measure adversely affecting him—Scope (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a)) (see para. 30)

2. Actions brought by officials—Acts adversely affecting an official—Meaning—Measures producing binding legal effects (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 32)

3. Officials—Decision adversely affecting an official—Obligation to state reasons—Scope (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2); Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para. and 90(2)) (see paras 35-37)

4. Officials—Remuneration—Family allowances—Education allowance—Conditions for granting—Regular full-time attendance (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 3) (see paras 59-61, 63, 67)

5. Officials—Remuneration—Family allowances—Education allowance—Conditions for granting—School which charges fees—Meaning—Establishment not receiving either registration fees or school fees—Not included (Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 3) (see para. 70)

6. Officials—Remuneration—Financial rules applicable to officials posted to a third country—Education allowance—Conditions for granting (Staff Regulations, Annex X, Art. 15) (see paras 75-77)

7. Officials—Recovery of undue payments—Conditions—Patent overpayment—Criteria (Staff Regulations, Art. 85, first para.) (see paras 106-109, 111-113)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment (i) of the decision of the appointing authority of the EEAS of 18 November 2015 to reassess the amount of the education allowance due to the applicant, (ii) of the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 12 January 2016 to recover, by means of deductions from pay, the sums unduly paid to the applicant, (iii) of the decision of 12 May 2016 rejecting the complaints against those decisions, and, second, and an order requiring the EEAS to return to the applicant the sums previously paid in accordance with his right to the education allowance.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark—Observations of third parties and opposition—Examination of the opposition—Proof of use of the earlier mark—Genuine use—Meaning—Interpretation taking account of the rationale of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Recital 10 and Art. 42(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, rule 22(3))

(see para. 40)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 17 April 2018 —

Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (BOBO cornet)

(Case T‑648/16)

(European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BOBO cornet — Prior EU figurative mark OZMO cornet — No 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 25, 26, 93)

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—Determination of the dominant elements(s) (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 29, 34, 35)

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—Figurative marks BOBO cornet and OZMO cornet (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 57-63, 77-84, 94-98)

4. EU 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. 101)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2016 (Case R 906/2015-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret and Ms Zaharieva.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2018 –

Euro Castor Green v EUIPO — Netlon France (Concealed trellis)

(Case T‑756/16)

(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a trellis — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Disclosure of earlier design — Lack of novelty — No individual character — Articles 5, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

1. Community designs—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—Not included (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61) (see para. 18)

2. Community designs—Ground for invalidity—Lack of novelty—Previous disclosure of identical design—Proof of the disclosure (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 5(1)(b), 7(1) and 65(1); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(v) and (vi)) (see paras 31-33)

3. Community designs—Ground for invalidity—Lack of novelty—Previous disclosure of identical design—Representation of a trellis (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 5(1)(b), 7(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 47-49, 51, 52, 54-56, 59, 62)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 (Case R 754/2014-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Netlon France and Euro Castor Green.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;