ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
As EU law currently stands, the delimitation between the jurisdiction of the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal is based on the personal status of the applicant and on the origin of the dispute. In accordance with consistent case-law, where a dispute between an official and the institution by which he is or was employed originates in the employment relationship between the person concerned and the institution, it falls under Article 270 TFEU and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations and therefore lies outside the scope of Articles 268 TFEU and 340 TFEU, which govern the general system of extra-contractual liability of the Union.

In a dispute between the relatives of a deceased official and the institution by which he was employed, where those relatives bring an action in order to obtain reparation for damage which is personal to them, whether that damage is material or non-material, the subjective personal condition, linked to the status of official enjoying the rights in question, is lacking and the Civil Service Tribunal therefore, in principle, lacks jurisdiction ratione personae to hear and determine the dispute under Article 270 TFEU and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations. In those circumstances, where the relatives claim compensation for various losses caused by a single act, they are necessarily required to bring two actions, one before the Civil Service Tribunal and the other before the General Court, depending on whether they have succeeded to the rights of the official in question or whether they claim reparation for material or non-material damage that is personal to them, those two actions for compensation being subject to different conditions on the substance.

However, having regard to considerations of legal certainty, sound administration of justice, economy of procedure and the prevention of contradictory court decisions, it is permissible for those relatives to join their applications and form a single action. That single action must be brought before the General Court, which is not only the ‘general’ or ‘general law’ court, having ‘unlimited jurisdiction’ in that respect, unlike the Civil Service Tribunal, which is the specialised court, but also the higher court, to which the Civil Service Tribunal is ‘attached’, in the words of Article 257 TFEU. In application of the second subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, the Civil Service Tribunal should immediately decline jurisdiction so that the General Court may act on those cases.

(see paras 47, 51, 65, 66, 73-75)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 May 2014 — Eni v OHIM — Emi (IP) (ENI)

(Case T‑599/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ENI — Earlier Community figurative mark EMI — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Partial refusal of registration’

1. 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 23, 24, 61, 76)

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 207/09, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 29, 30)

3. Community trade mark — Procedure before OHIM bodies — Directives of the Office — Scope — Limits (see para. 43)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word mark ENI and figurative mark EMI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56, 70, 77)

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 — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Similarity of the marks concerned — Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 67)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2011 (Case R 2439/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Emi (IP) Ltd and Eni SpA.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 November 2014 —

Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries (LOVOL)

(Case T‑525/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark LOVOL — Earlier Community word and figurative marks and earlier national figurative marks VOLVO — Relative ground for refusal — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. 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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 17, 18)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b), and (5)) (see paras 21, 22)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Figurative mark LOVOL — Word and figurative marks VOLVO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b), and (5)) (see paras 55-58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2011 (Case R 1868/2010‑1), concerning opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
1.

Annuls Council Decision 2011/357/CFSP of 20 June 2011, amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus, Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus, Council Decision 2011/666/CFSP of 10 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1000/2011 of 10 October 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as those acts concern BelTechExport ZAO;
4.

Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Limitation by the Court — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Syria — Risk of serious and irreversible undermining being caused to the effectiveness of any asset-freezing likely to be, in future, decided by the Council against the persons concerned by the annulled measure — Maintenance of the effects of the annulled decisions and regulations until expiry of the time-limit for an appeal or the dismissal thereof (Arts 264, second para., TFEU and 266 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 56, first para., and 60, second para.; Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP; Council Regulations No 1151/2011 and No 36/2012) (see paras 52-58)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 May 2012 —

Amador López v OHIM (AUTOCOACHING)



(Case T‑325/11)

Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark AUTOCOACHING — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 29, 31-36)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 March 2011 (Case R 1665/2010‑2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark AUTOCOACHING as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 – Häfele v OHIM (Infront)

(Case T-166/11)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark Infront – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 22-23, 25-26, 34)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2011 (Case R 1711/2010‑1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Infront as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1.Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 April 2012 — Leifheit v OHIM (EcoPerfect)

(Case T-328/11)

Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark EcoPerfect — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 20, 35, 49, 58, 63)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 March 2011 (Case R 1658/2010‑1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign EcoPerfect as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;
107

In that regard, it should be pointed out that it is settled case-law that the statement of reasons required by Article 296 TFEU must be appropriate to the nature of the act at issue. It must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the EU courts to exercise their power of review. However, it is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons for a measure meets the requirements of Article 296 TFEU must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question (see judgment in Case C-310/04 Spain v Council [2006] ECR I-7285, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited). This is a fortiori the case where the Member States have been closely associated with the process of drafting the contested measure and are thus aware of the reasons underlying that measure (see judgment in Case C-301/97 Netherlands v Council [2001] ECR I-8853, paragraph 188 and the case-law cited).
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Obligation to implement — Scope — Both the operative part and the grounds of the judgment to be taken into account — Retroactive effect of annulment (Art. 266 TFEU) (see paras 37, 38)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — Well-known facts taken into account (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(1)) (see para. 51)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2011 (Case R 1235/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Cytochroma Development, Inc.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 2 December 2011 (Case R 1235/2011-1);

2. Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — Brauerei Beck v OHIM — Aldi (Be Light)

(Case T-172/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Be Light — Earlier Community mark BECK’s — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18)

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 — Figurative mark Be Light and word mark BECK’s (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 30, 34-38)

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 — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21)

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 of the marks concerned — Possibility of a similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

5. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice (see para. 31)

6. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the Community judicature — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (Case R 2258/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Brauerei Beck GmbH & Co. KG and Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 November 2013 — Recaro v OHIM — Certino Mode (RECARO)

(Case T-524/12)

‛Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark RECARO — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1), second subparagraph, (a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Nature of the use of the mark — Admissibility of new evidence — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second subpara., (a), and 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 22(2), and 40(5)) (see paras 18-21, 24, 25, 31, 41)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity –Grounds of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Word mark RECARO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), second subpara., (a), and 51(1)(a)) (see paras 25-28, 38, 42-45, 48-50, 53-55)

3. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action brought against a decision by the Cancellation 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 — Taking into account — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 50(1)) (see paras 59-65)

4. 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. 70)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 1761/2011-1) relating to revocation proceedings between Recaro Beteiligungs-GmbH and Certino Mode SL.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 October 2013 — Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (zoo sport)

(Case T-455/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ZOO Sport — Earlier Community word mark ZOOT and earlier Community figurative mark SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. 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 27, 92)

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 — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 29)

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 — Figurative marks ZOO SPORT and ZOOT SPORT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 91, 98)

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 of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2012 (Case R 1395/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between K-2 Corp. and Zoo Sport Ltd.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2014 — Wilmar Trading v OHIM — Agroekola (ULTRA CHOCO)

(Case T‑232/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ULTRA CHOCO — Earlier national word mark ultra choco — Unregistered earlier mark ULTRA CHOCO used in the course of trade in the European Union and in Bulgaria — Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay appeal fee within the time limit — Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring the appeal deemed not to have been filed’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Account taken by the General Court of evidence not previously raised before the departments of OHIM — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 21)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Form of appeal and period within which it must be brought — Payment of the appeal fee outside the time limit (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 60; Commission Regulations No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 49(3), and No 2869/95, Art. 8(3)) (see paras 32-34)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2012 (Case R 87/2012‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd and Agroekola EOOD.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd to pay the costs.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2014 — Wilmar Trading v OHIM — Agroekola (ULTRA CHOCO)

(Case T‑232/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ULTRA CHOCO — Earlier national word mark ultra choco — Unregistered earlier mark ULTRA CHOCO used in the course of trade in the European Union and in Bulgaria — Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay appeal fee within the time limit — Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring the appeal deemed not to have been filed’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Account taken by the General Court of evidence not previously raised before the departments of OHIM — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 21)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Form of appeal and period within which it must be brought — Payment of the appeal fee outside the time limit (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 60; Commission Regulations No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 49(3), and No 2869/95, Art. 8(3)) (see paras 32-34)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2012 (Case R 87/2012‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd and Agroekola EOOD.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 19, 20, 50)