ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 October 2019 –

McDreams Hotel v EUIPO — McDonald’s International Property (mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis!)

(Case T‑428/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis! — Earlier EU word mark McDONALD’S — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Family of marks — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Link between the marks — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 24, 25, 29-31)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Similarity of the marks concerned — Degree of similarity required (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5)) (see para. 37)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Figurative mark mc dreams hotels Träumen zum kleinen Preis! — Word mark McDONALD’S (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 54, 60, 62, 63, 82, 85)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Condition — Link between the marks — Criteria for assessment — Existence of a family of earlier marks — Conditions (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 65-67)

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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 88, 89)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 April 2018 (Case R 972/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between McDonald’s International Property Co. and McDreams Hotel.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Agriculture — EAFRD financing — Clearance of accounts — Limitation of refusal of financing — Twenty-four month period — Point from which time starts to run — Communication by the Commission of the results of verifications — Date of payment of the aid to be taken into consideration for calculating the period — Date of final payment of the aid

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1306/2013, Art. 52(4)(a) and (c))

(see paras 49-52, 64, 66)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 November 2019 –

Mélin v Parliament

(Case T‑726/18)

(Law governing the institutions — Rules governing expenses and allowances payable to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Obligation to state reasons — Failure to provide the annex to the decision ordering recovery)

European Parliament — Rules on costs and indemnities of MEPs — Parliamentary assistance allowances — Decision ordering recovery of sums unduly paid — Obligation to state reasons — Failure to provide the annex to that decision — Annulment of the decision

(Art. 296, second para. TFEU)

(see paras 25, 37-41, 44)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 4 October 2018 concerning the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 130 339.35 unduly paid as parliamentary assistance and the corresponding debit note of 10 October 2018.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 4 October 2018 concerning the recovery from Joëlle Mélin of a sum of EUR 130 339.35 unduly paid as parliamentary assistance and of the corresponding debit note of 10 October 2018;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 January 2020 –

Aldi v EUIPO — Titlbach (ALTISPORT)

(Case T‑697/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark ALTISPORT — Earlier international and EU word marks ALDI — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Comparison of the goods and services — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18)

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 between the goods or services in question — Complementary nature of the goods or services (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24)

3. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Service marks — Concept of ‘services’ — Retail trade in goods — Included — Conditions for registration (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 2) (see paras 28, 30)

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 — Figurative mark ALTISPORT and word marks ALDI (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43-47, 109, 110)

5. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1) first sentence) (see para. 91)

6. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Audi alteram partem rule — Scope (see para. 93)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2018 (Case R 2683/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Aldi and Mr Titlbach.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 September 2018 (Case R 2683/2017-4) in so far as it concerns ‘toys’ in Class 28 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
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 — Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 16)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see para. 22)
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see paras 26, 27)
Community designs – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Limits

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188)

(see para. 16)
EU law – Principles – Rights of defence – Right to effective judicial protection – Restrictive measures directed against the Democratic Republic of the Congo – Freezing of funds of persons undermining the rule of law or contributing to the commission of acts that constitute serious human rights violations – Obligation to disclose individual and specific grounds for the decisions adopted – Obligation to enable the person concerned effectively to put forward his point of view on the grounds held against him – Scope

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282, Annex II)

(see paras 50, 51, 53)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 December 2020 – SGL Carbon v Commission

(Case T‑639/18)

(Non-contractual liability – Environment – Classification, labelling and packaging of certain substances and mixtures – Classification of pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) toxic substance and as an Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) toxic substance – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals)

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 53, 54)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Meaning – Classification method for aquatic environmental hazards – Precluded (Art. 340, second para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1272/2008, as amended by Regulations No 286/2011 and No 944/2013, Annex I, point 4.1.3.5.5) (see paras 57, 65-68)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law which leads to the imposition or strengthening of obligations on individuals so as to affect their legal situation (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 69, 70)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of EU law – Requirement that the institutions manifestly and seriously disregard the limits of their discretion – Breach by the Commission of a rule affording it some discretion when classifying chemical substances and mixtures – Highly complex scientific situation – No sufficiently serious breach (Art. 340, second para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1272/2008, as amended by Regulations No 286/2011 and No 944/2013, Annex I, point 4.1.3.5.5) (see paras 79-115)

Re:

Action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 944/2013 of 2 October 2013 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2013 L 261, p. 5), in so far as that regulation classified pitch, coal tar, high-temp as an Aquatic Acute 1 (H400) and Aquatic Chronic 1 (H410) substance.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders SGL Carbon SE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based

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

(see paras 68-71)
Officials – Competitions – Conduct of a competition – Allocation of powers between the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) and the selection board – Use of an external service provider, by the selection board, in collaboration with EPSO, to prepare the content of a test – Whether permissible

(Staff Regulations, Arts 17 and 30, first para.; Annex III, Arts 1, first para., 4, 5, first para. and 7(2); decision of the Secretaries-General of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Registrar of the Court of Justice, the Secretaries-General of the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Representative of the Ombudsman 2002/621, Art. 1(1) and (2)(c))

(see paras 50, 51, 54-56, 67, 70, 89)
Officials – Competitions – Holding of an open competition – Languages of communication between the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) and the candidates – Restriction – Whether permissible – Statement of reasons – Justification having regard to the interests of the service – Observance of the principle of equal treatment between candidates

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 1d(1) and (6) and Annex III, Art. 1; Council Regulation No 1, Arts 2 and 5)

(see paras 50-52)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 September 2021 –

TUIfly v Commission

(Case T‑619/18)

(Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to a procedure for the review of State aid – Refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits – Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party – Overriding public interest)

1. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Obligation to state reasons – Scope (Art. 15(3) TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Recital 11 and Art. 4) (see paras 38, 39)

2. EU institutions – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits – Scope – Application to administrative files relating to procedures for reviewing State aid (Art. 108 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), 3rd indent) (see paras 40, 42, 45)

3. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents – Concept – Pursuit of an action for annulment – Precluded (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2)) (see paras 47-49)

4. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits – Scope – Application to administrative files relating to procedures for reviewing State aid – General presumption that the exception applies to the right of access to all the documents on the administrative file – Application for access formulated during the court proceedings concerning the decision on the substance – Admissibility of the refusal (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), 3rd indent) (see paras 50, 51)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 5432 final of 3 August 2018 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to the administrative procedure concerning State aid SA.24221(2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Austria for the Klagenfurt airport, Ryanair and other airlines using the airport.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
27

In paragraphs 17 to 22 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal considered that the document produced in Annex B to the application for a declaration of invalidity was the original of a sales catalogue and that whether the cover page really belonged to the rest of the pages of that catalogue was irrelevant for the evaluation of the facts. It observed that, on page 2 of that catalogue, there appeared the design used for comparison, as reproduced in paragraph 4 above, and that, in the editorial of the catalogue, which was on page 1 and thus on the same page as the illustration, it was stated that the catalogue ‘ha[d] been issued in time for the Automechanika 2010 trade fair’. The Board of Appeal inferred that the catalogue had been published in 2010, stating that the determination of a precise date of publication was not necessary, since registration of the design at issue had been applied for in November 2013. It observed, moreover, that the editorial referred to the fact that ‘the redesigned website www.easyfix.at [was] to go online’ and that that explained in inconsistency between the domain name used on the cover page and that used on page 2. In addition, the Board of Appeal stated that it had no doubt that the document produced in Annex C to the application for a declaration of invalidity, namely the copy of part of a catalogue, was from 2011; that the schematic reproduction in the document produced in Annex E to that application, relating to the utility model, had been published in the German Patent Journal in February 2012, and thus made available to the public no later than that date; that the display holders for vehicles reproduced in paragraph 4 above all related to the same design; and that the illustrations in Annexes A to D to that application all contained the same datasheet of a BMW 520i Touring. It concluded that the documents produced in Annexes A to E to the application for a declaration of invalidity were suitable for providing evidence of the disclosure of the claimed earlier design, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.
83

In the light of those arguments, it must be recalled that, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 80 above, the applicant cannot rely on its own interest in order to demonstrate the existence of an overriding public interest. Moreover, the Commission’s interpretation of a provision of EU law is not authoritative since the Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction over the definitive interpretation of EU law (see, to that effect, Opinion 2/13, of 18 December 2014, EU:C:2014:2454, paragraph 246, and Opinion 1/17, of 30 April 2019, EU:C:2019:341, paragraph 111). Thus, when it is followed in a decision taken by a national authority, the Commission’s interpretation of a provision of EU law may form the subject of a question referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling following a dispute before the national courts concerning that decision. Even when the Commission imposes its interpretation of a provision of EU law on a Member State in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, that interpretation may be subject to review by the Court of Justice where the Member State fails to comply with it. Consequently, the Commission’s interpretation of a provision of EU law does not provide legal certainty and it is not demonstrated that it would limit the number of disputes relating to the scope of that provision. Furthermore, the fact that the Commission does not disclose its interpretation of the scope of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1370/2007, as reproduced in the documents at issue, does not entail unequal treatment since the applicant is not in a situation comparable to that of the French Republic and the RATP, which were involved in an EU Pilot procedure and were part of the preliminary ruling proceedings in the cases that have since given rise to the judgment of 21 March 2019, Mobit and Autolinee Toscane (C‑350/17 and C‑351/17, EU:C:2019:237).
38

In that regard, as is clear from paragraph 8.3 of the decision of 14 February 2019, the ECB relied on the following reasons: ‘The cash collateral posted in order to secure IPC are unavailable until payment is made upon request of the resolution authority or the deposit guarantee scheme: – If such payment is made, the outstanding IPC shall be accounted as an expense with negative impact on the Common Equity Tier 1 capital. This means that the encumbered assets or the cash collateral will become available only when Common Equity Tier 1 capital has already been impacted by the cash payment. – If such payment is not made, the resolution authority or the deposit guarantee scheme will use the encumbered assets or the posted collateral, with a direct negative impact on the Common Equity Tier 1 capital. As a consequence, … the cash collateral will never be available to cover any losses that the relevant supervised entity may suffer on an ongoing basis. Moreover, both the resolution authority and the deposit guarantee scheme may enforce the IPC at a point in time when a particular credit institution is under resolution or liquidation and, at that time, a cash payment of the outstanding IPC shall be accounted as an expense with negative impact on the Common Equity Tier 1 capital. This may occur during a time of stress with possible pro-cyclical effects. The amount of the IPC in respect of which assets are encumbered or cash collateral posted should therefore be considered as not available to cover losses of the relevant credit institution. This is currently not reflected in the Common Equity Tier 1 capital of the relevant supervised entity which therefore does not give an accurate view of its actual financial soundness and of the risks to which the relevant supervised entity is exposed as regards the use of IPC.’
44

For its part, ACER contends that Article 19(5) of Regulation No 713/2009 in no way obliges the Board of Appeal to carry out the same review as that performed by the Agency and that it is therefore free not to examine the case in the same level of detail as the Agency. It considers that the Board of Appeal has discretion to determine whether the conditions laid down in Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation No 714/2009 are satisfied. In that regard, it argues that according to the case-law, assessments involving complex economic and technical matters are subject, on appeal, to a review which is limited to manifest errors. It emphasises that Article 19 of Regulation No 713/2009 does not prevent the Board of Appeal from accepting the technical and economic assessments made by the Agency. Having regard to the complex economic and technical matters involved, the principle of procedural economy and the short deadline laid down in Article 19(2) of Regulation No 713/2009, the Board of Appeal is not in a position to carry out an examination as thorough as that of the Agency and may confine itself to deciding whether the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment. It notes that the applicant failed to demonstrate that a more thorough examination might have led to a different result and argues that the expert testimony on which the applicant relies was duly taken into account and assessed. It also contends that, contrary to the applicant’s assertions, there was no need to put questions to the CRE, since the decision of the Board of Appeal was not dependent on the CRE’s answer to the questions concerning the possibility of qualifying for the regulated scheme in France under Article 12 of Regulation No 347/2013 and the compatibility of the restrictions with EU law.