ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 –

WhiteWave Services v EUIPO — Fernandes (VeGa one)

(Case T‑176/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark VeGa one — International registration designating the European Union in respect of the earlier word mark Vegas — 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 24, 88, 89)

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 — Figurative mark VeGa one and word mark VEGAS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 38, 42, 47, 59, 94, 97)

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 — Pharmaceutical products and products other than pharmaceutical products (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 33, 34)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 41)

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 — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 45, 51)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 2466/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Carlos Fernandes and Sequel Naturals.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Grants WhiteWave Services, Inc. leave to replace Sequel Naturals ULC as applicant;

2. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders WhiteWave Services to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2019 –

Barata v Parliament

(Case T‑467/17)

(Action for annulment — Civil service — Selection procedure for contract staff — Recruitment — Call for expressions of interest EP/CAST/S/16/2016 — Drivers — Practical and theoretical tests organised following the establishment of a database — Failure in the theoretical test — Annulment of the call for expressions of interest and voiding of the database — Action which has become devoid of purpose — Continuing interest in bringing proceedings — No need, in part, to adjudicate — Inadmissibility in part)

1. Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Repeal of the contested act in the course of the proceedings — Application devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate (Arts 263 and 277 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 131) (see paras 20-22)

2. Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Meaning — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Interest having to subsist until the delivery of the court decision — Contested measure lapsing in the course of the proceedings — Interest in bringing proceedings retained — Conditions — Burden of proof (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 29-34, 40-44, 57)

3. 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 — Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21 and 53; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76) (see para. 58)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the call for expressions of interest EP/CAST/S/16/2016, issued by the Parliament for the recruitment of drivers, and of various acts adopted by the Parliament in connection with that selection procedure, including, in particular, the decision of 26 October 2016 informing the applicant that he was not among the candidates selected for a post as a driver and the decision of 25 April 2017 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the request for annulment of the call for expressions of interest EP/CAST/S/16/2016, of the decision of 26 October 2016 informing Mr Carlos Manuel Henriques Barata that he was not among the candidates selected for a post as a driver, and of the decision of 25 April 2017 rejecting the complaint lodged by Mr Barata against that decision;

2. Declares that there is also no longer any need to adjudicate on the request for a declaration that the call for expressions of interest EP/CAST/S/16/2016 does not apply to Mr Barata;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the action as inadmissible;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 September 2019 –

Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T‑629/17)

(ERDF — ESF — Reduction in financial assistance — Public procurement — Article 99(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC — Specific exclusion — Public service contracts for the acquisition, development, production or co-production of programme material intended for broadcasting by broadcasters)

1. Own resources of the European Union — Regulation on protection of the financial interests of the Union — Eligibility for EU funding — Obligation for operations selected for funding to comply with EU law — Scope (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Recital 22 and Art. 9(5); European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18) (see para. 23)

2. EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, systematic and teleological interpretation (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, Art. 16(b)) (see paras 26-28)

3. Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2004/18 — Derogations from common rules — Restrictive interpretation (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18, Art. 16(b)) (see para. 29)

4. Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Directive 2004/18 — Scope (European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/24, Recital 25 and Art. 16(b); Council Directive 92/50, Art. 1(a)(iv)) (see paras 34-39, 47, 48, 63)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 4682 final of 6 July 2017 cancelling part of the European Social Fund assistance for the operational programme ‘Education for Competitiveness’ under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic and part of the European Regional Development Fund assistance for the operational programmes ‘Research and Development for Innovations’ under the ‘Convergence’ objective in the Czech Republic and ‘Technical Assistance’ under the ‘Convergence’ and ‘Regional Competitiveness and Employment’ objectives in the Czech Republic.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs;
EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Commission not complying with time limits for responding to an application for access – Implied rejection decision – Replacement by the adoption an express rejection decision – No possibility of bringing proceedings against the implied decision

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 7 and 8)

(see paras 17, 18)
Judicial proceedings — Intervention — Application not designed to support the form of order sought by one of the parties — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 142(1))

(see para. 29)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2021 –

Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale di Pindaru Gelu

(Case T‑268/17)

(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 Court to rule on the applicant’s pleas – Conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 123(3))

(see paras 25-27, 35)

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 632462, 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 101 370.94, together with default interest calculated at 3.5% per annum from 7 February 2017 and until the date of full payment of the amount due;
39

While it is true that the ECHR does not constitute, as long as the European Union has not acceded to it, a legal instrument which has been formally incorporated into European Union law (judgments of 26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson, C‑617/10, EU:C:2013:105, paragraph 44, and of 3 September 2015, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Commission, C‑398/13 P, EU:C:2015:535, paragraph 45) and that, consequently, an examination of the validity of an act of EU secondary legislation must be undertaken solely in the light of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter (judgment of 15 February 2016, N., C‑601/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:84, paragraph 46), it should be recalled, on the one hand, that, under Article 6(3) TEU, fundamental rights recognised by the ECHR constitute general principles of EU law and, on the other hand, that it follows from Article 52(3) of the Charter that the rights contained in the Charter which correspond to rights guaranteed by the ECHR are to have the same meaning and scope as those laid down by the ECHR. According to the explanations relating to that provision, which, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 6(1) TEU and Article 52(7) of the Charter, have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of interpreting it, the meaning and scope of the guaranteed rights are determined not only by the text of the ECHR, but also, in particular, by the case-law of the ECtHR (see judgment of 30 June 2016, Toma and Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horaţiu-Vasile Cruduleci, C‑205/15, EU:C:2016:499, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited). It is also apparent from those explanations that Article 52(3) of the Charter is intended to ensure the necessary consistency between the rights contained in the Charter and the corresponding rights guaranteed by the ECHR, without thereby adversely affecting the autonomy of EU law and that of the Court of Justice of the European Union (judgment of 28 July 2016, JZ, C‑294/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:610, paragraph 50). Moreover, it must be pointed out that that equivalence between the freedoms guaranteed by the Charter and those guaranteed by the ECHR has been formally expressed in relation to freedom of expression (judgment of 4 May 2016, Philip Morris Brands and Others, C‑547/14, EU:C:2016:325, paragraph 147).
148

It must also be stated that, according to settled case-law, it is apparent from the very logic of the 2002 Leniency Notice, as well as from that of the 2006 Leniency Notice, that the effect sought is to create a climate of uncertainty within cartels by encouraging those participating in them to denounce the cartels to the Commission. That uncertainty results precisely from the fact that the cartel participants know that only one of them can benefit from immunity from fines by denouncing the other participants in the infringement, thereby exposing them to the risk that they face being fined. In the context of that system, and according to the same logic, the undertakings that are quickest to provide their cooperation are supposed to benefit from greater reductions of the fines that would otherwise be imposed on them than those granted to the undertakings that are less quick to cooperate (see judgments of 16 September 2013, Wabco Europe and Others v Commission, T‑380/10, EU:T:2013:449, paragraph 147 and the case-law cited, and of 16 September 2013, Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others v Commission, T‑496/07, not published, EU:T:2013:464, paragraph 334 and the case-law cited).
5.

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 — 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)(c)) (see para. 31)
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 — Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(1)(e))

(see para. 24)
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 — 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 paras 38, 39)
EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate consideration of the pleas in law having regard to every one of the products or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1) and 94(1), first sentence)

(see paras 58-61)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2019 –

Meblo Trade v EUIPO — Meblo Int (MEBLO)

(Case T‑263/18)

(EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — European Union figurative trade mark MEBLO — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use)

1. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Revocation proceedings — Facts and evidence not submitted within the prescribed time-limit — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 58(1)(a) and 95(2)) (see paras 23, 24)

2. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Definition — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1), 58 and 64) (see paras 35-39)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2018 (Case R 883/2017-4), concerning revocation proceedings between Meblo Trade and Meblo Int, proizvodnja izdelkov za spanje.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 — 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. 44)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2019 –

Gruppo Armonie v EUIPO (mo·da)

(Case T‑264/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark mo·da — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Absolute ground for refusal in part of the European Union — Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Meaning — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 32)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Figurative mark mo·da (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 29, 40, 45, 54, 63)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Marks consisting of advertising slogans — Slogan carrying an objective message (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 33)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use — Trade mark devoid of distinctive character throughout the EU — Acquisition by use also throughout the EU (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(3)) (see para. 50)

5. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see paras 60, 62)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2018 (Case R 2065/2017-5) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign mo·da as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 April 2019 –

Medrobotics v EUIPO (See More. Reach More. Treat More.)

(Case T‑555/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark See More. Reach More. Treat More. — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 13-15, 19)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks comprising advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 17)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks comprising advertising slogans — Flattering promotional formula (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark See More. Reach More. Treat More. (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 29, 30)

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. 23)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks comprising advertising slogans — Slogan carrying an objective message (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 28)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2018 (Case R 463/2018-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign See More. Reach More. Treat More. as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 September 2019 –

Fränkischer Weinbauverband v EUIPO (Shape of an ellipsoidal bottle)

(Case T‑68/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a bulbous ellipsoidal bottle, flattened on the front and back — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17-22)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Three-dimensional sign constituted by the shape of bulbous ellipsoidal bottle, flattened on the front and back (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 40, 42-47, 51-54, 58)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria — Perception of the trade mark by the relevant public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 25)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Identification of the mark — Image of the trade mark in the application for registration (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7) (see para. 28)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Case R 413/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign constituted by the shape of bulbous ellipsoidal bottle, flattened on the front and back.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
5.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of 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 — Need to take account of the overall perception of the combination by the relevant public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 21)