ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
11

By letter of 3 September 2015, the Secretary-General of the Commission confirmed the initial decision in the second procedure (‘the contested decision’). First of all, in paragraph 1 of the contested decision, the Secretary-General of the Commission recalled that the initial decision and the confirmatory decision in the first procedure had refused access to all documents relating to the EIRD proceeding on the basis of the exceptions laid down in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, namely the protection, respectively, of the commercial interests of a natural or legal person, the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits, and the institution’s decision-making process. Next, in paragraph 2 of the contested decision, the Secretary-General of the Commission pointed out that the initial decision in the second procedure had stated that the documents requested by the applicant, namely the non-confidential version of the EIRD decision and the table of contents, formed part of the set of documents relating to the EIRD proceeding to which access had already been refused in the first procedure, in which Edeka Verband had acted on behalf of the applicant. Furthermore, it drew attention to the fact that the Commission had not yet finalised the preparation of a non-confidential version of the EIRD decision and that the EIRD proceeding continued against the parties which were not willing to settle. Finally, in paragraph 3 of the contested decision, the Secretary-General of the Commission considered, first, that there was still no non-confidential version of the EIRD decision, making it impossible to give effect to the request for access to a non-existent document; secondly, that the request for access to the table of contents was covered by the first procedure, in which the applicant had already received a detailed explanation of the grounds for refusal in the initial decision and the confirmatory decision in the first procedure; and thirdly, that the contested decision was only confirmatory of the refusal to grant access in the first procedure, a refusal which had become final because no action had been brought against it within the prescribed period.
26

The adoption of a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to a national measure in the situation provided for in Article 13 of Regulation No 659/1999 alters the legal position of that measure, in the light of the Commission’s provisional conclusion as to its State aid status within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and as to its unlawful nature, arising from the possible infringement of the requirement to notify any new aid plans, established in Article 108(3) TFEU. Until the adoption of such a decision, the Member State from which the measure originated, the beneficiary undertakings and other economic operators may believe that the measure is being lawfully implemented, for example as a general measure not falling within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU or as existing aid within the meaning of Article 108(1) TFEU and within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation No 659/1999, the continued implementation of which remains lawful at that stage. On the other hand, after its adoption there is at the very least a significant element of doubt as to the legality of the measure at issue, which, without prejudice to the possibility of seeking interim relief from the judge hearing the application for interim measures, must lead the Member State to suspend its application, since the initiation of the formal investigation procedure excludes the possibility of an immediate decision that the measure is compatible with the internal market, which would enable it to continue to be lawfully implemented (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 October 2014, Alro v Commission, T‑517/12, EU:T:2014:890, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
160

First, as far as evidence of the damage is concerned, it is true that the applicant cites financial difficulties encountered by Codefa which were allegedly caused by the acts at issue, which justified its decision to sell its shareholding in that company. When it sold those shares, the applicant suffered as a result of their decline in value, in respect of which it is claiming compensation. However, first, it must be pointed out that, although the applicant claims to have invested EUR 232490 in purchasing shares in that company, it is apparent from the wording used in the application that, since 2010, it had not paid the vendor the balance of EUR 155000 in connection with that purchase. Secondly, with regard to the invoice for fees that the applicant submitted as an annex to the reply in order to justify the EUR 30000 transaction costs in respect of which it is claiming compensation, the fact remains that, as the applicant itself acknowledged at the hearing, which was noted in the minutes, that document, which is undated, relates to accountant’s fees that had been paid to assess ‘the merits of investing in Codefa Connectique’, an investment which led to the applicant purchasing that company in 2009, thus a year before the measures at issue were adopted. Therefore, the transaction costs on which the applicant relies do not relate in any case to the sale of its shares in Codefa in November 2010, the sale in respect of which it is claiming compensation, but to the purchase of those shares in 2009. Accordingly, there being no need to rule on the admissibility of the abovementioned annex since it was not produced before the Court until the reply stage, it must be rejected as irrelevant with regard to the damage at issue here. It is clear from the foregoing considerations that the applicant has adduced no evidence of the alleged damage.
Appeal — Pleas in laws — Breach of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita — Annulment action against a decision refusing to recalculate the bonus relating to pension rights — Reclassification of the subject-matter of a plea raised vaguely by the applicant as intended to challenge the substantive legality of the contested decision — Error of law

(Art. 263 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 25, 29, 33-36)
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — DMC v EUIPO — Etike’ International (De Giusti ORGOGLIO)

(Case T‑18/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark De Giusti ORGOGLIO — Earlier EU word mark ORGOGLIO — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 18-20, 60)

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 para. 24)

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 De Giusti ORGOGLIO and word mark ORGOGLIO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 30, 43, 57, 62)

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—Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2015 (Case R 1764/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Etike’ International and DMC.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 March 2017 —

Apax Partners UK v EUIPO — Apax Partners Midmarket (APAX PARTNERS)

(Case T‑209/16)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for the EU word mark APAX PARTNERS — Earlier international word mark APAX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the services — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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, 40, 44)

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 para. 24)

3. EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Relative grounds for invalidity—Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Word marks APAX PARTNERS and APAX (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 25, 27, 39, 43, 45)

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. 26)

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 between the goods or services in question—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 29)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 February 2016 (Case R 1611/2014-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Apax Partners Midmarket and Apax Partners UK.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
8.

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—Weighing elements of similarity or difference between the signs—Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 82)
Article 24(4) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations provides that it is on the basis only of the penalty imposed in the decision closing disciplinary proceedings that it may be determined whether sums withheld from remuneration must be repaid, and the assessment of the gravity of the misconduct of the person concerned has no relevance in that regard.

The right to repayment of sums withheld is only available, under this provision, to staff on whom no penalty has been imposed, or on whom a written warning, a reprimand or a temporary deferment of advancement to a higher step has been imposed, on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.

By refusing to repay to the applicant, on whom it had imposed a reprimand, sums withheld from his remuneration, the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (AECE) infringed Article 24(4) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 32, 38, 39)
EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), and 75, first sentence)

(see para. 45)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 March 2017 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

(Case T‑175/16)

(Community design — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — Registered Community design representing a suction nozzle for a vacuum cleaner — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — 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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 24, 25)

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 — Global assessment of all the elements of the prior design (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 26)

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 — Representation of a suction nozzle for vacuum cleaners (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1), and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 29-31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 (Case R 1725/2014-3), as rectified, relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Wolf PVG and Wessel-Werk.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 June 2017 —

Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (AROMASENSATIONS)

(Case T‑479/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark AROMASENSATIONS — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15-17, 19, 24)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Not permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark AROMASENSATIONS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 25-27, 35, 37)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries — Decisions not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 40)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2016 (Case R 2482/2015-2), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign AROMASENSATIONS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Termination of a contract concluded for an indefinite period — Administration’s discretion — Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of officials — Scope — No obligation to consider the possibility of reassigning the staff member concerned

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, Art. 47(c)(i))

(see paras 44, 45, 58, 62)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (медведь)

(Case T‑432/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark медведь — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. 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 — Aim — Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 18)

2. 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 — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 20)

3. 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 — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 21, 36)

4. 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 — Figurative mark медведь (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 23, 31, 39, 41, 49, 55)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks likely to deceive the public — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(g)) (see para. 51)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Trade marks likely to deceive the public — Figurative mark медведь (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(g)) (see paras 52-54)

7. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Refusal of registration based on one of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Whether sufficient (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 57)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the first Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 May 2016 (Case R 240/2016-1), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign медведь as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 28 June 2017 —

X-cen-tek v EUIPO (Representation of a triangle)

(Case T‑470/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a triangle — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14-16)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Recognition of the distinctiveness of the sign not subject to a finding of a certain level of creativity or linguistic or artistic imagination — Mark fulfilling a decorative or ornamental function — Irrelevant (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23-25)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark representing a triangle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 27, 44)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries — Decisions not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 46)

5. 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 — Essential formality (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 54)

6. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Interest in bringing proceedings — Plea based on infringement of essential procedural requirements — Circumscribed powers of the Office — No interest (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 55)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2016 (Case R 2565/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a triangle as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;