ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 September 2020 –

BASF v Commission

(Case T‑472/19)

(Medicinal products for human use – Marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use containing omega-3 acid ethyl esters – Variation of the terms of the authorisation – First paragraph of Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC – Manifest error of assessment – Proportionality)

1. Approximation of laws – Medicinal products for human use – Authorization to market – Modification of the authorisation – Withdrawal and prohibition on marketing – Justification under the precautionary principle where there is uncertainty as to the existence and extent of risks to health (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Art. 116) (see paras 45-48)

2. Approximation of laws – Medicinal products for human use – Authorization to market – Modification of the authorisation – Withdrawal and prohibition on marketing – Conditions – Evidentiary requirements – Need for new scientific data or information – Scope (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Art. 116) (see paras 49-52)

3. Approximation of laws – Medicinal products for human use – Authorization to market – Modification of the authorisation – Withdrawal and prohibition on marketing – Opinion of the committee on medicinal products for human use – Purpose – Judicial review – Limits (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Art. 31) (see para. 53)

4. EU law – Interpretation – Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – To be taken into consideration – Decisions based on the opinion of a scientific authority – Incorporation of those opinions into the statement of reasons for such decisions (see para. 62)

5. Approximation of laws – Medicinal products for human use – Authorization to market – Modification of the authorisation – Withdrawal and prohibition on marketing – No infringement of the proportionality principle through failure to examine possibility of ordering a clinical study (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Art. 116) (see paras 108, 113)

6. Approximation of laws – Medicinal products for human use – Authorization to market – Modification of the authorisation – Withdrawal and prohibition on marketing – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Art. 116) (see para. 109)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2019) 4336 final of 6 June 2019 concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, marketing authorisations of medicinal products for human use containing ‘Omega-3 acid ethyl esters’ for oral use in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2021 – Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO – Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA)

(Case T‑829/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA – Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Relevant public – Similarity of the goods and services – Similarity of the signs – Global assessment of the 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 29, 30, 57-60, 65, 66, 68)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33)

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 BLEND 42 VODKA and word and figurative marks 42 BELOW (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 38, 64, 92, 103)

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 para. 36)

5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 43-45, 86)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 2531/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bacardi & Co. and Palírna U Zeléného stromu.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 – Meaning – Neologism consisting of elements descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services concerned – Whether included where the nature of the combination is not unusual (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18, 32)
EU law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Right to effective judicial protection – Restrictive measures against Syria – Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies associated with the Syrian regime – Obligation to disclose incriminating evidence – Scope – Notification to the person concerned by means of a publication in the Official Journal of the European Union – Whether permissible

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2); Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2015/1836, (CFSP) 2019/87 and (CFSP) 2019/806, Annex I; Council Regulation No 36/2012, as amended by Regulations Nos 2015/1828, 2019/85 and 2019/798, Annex II)

(see paras 41-43, 46, 56, 57)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 February 2021 –

Herlyn and Beck v EUIPO – Brillux (B.home)

(Case T‑821/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark B.home – Earlier international word mark B-Wohnen – 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 28-30, 79, 80)

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 – Word marks B.home and B-Wohnen (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 33, 44, 50, 59, 60, 69, 73, 83-85)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 38)

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 paras 45, 46)

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 – Conceptual similarity between the marks composed of verbal elements in different languages – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 64)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 September 2019 (Case R 373/2019-5), concerning opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Brillux and, on the other hand, Ms Herlyn and Mr Beck.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2021 –

Point Tec Products Electronic v EUIPO – Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon (representation of two extended wings around a triangle)

(Case T-615/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark representing two extended wings around a triangle – Earlier EU figurative mark representing two extended wings around a rectangle – 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) – Article 72(2) of Regulation 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 26-30)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38-40)

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 representing two extended wings around a triangle and figurative mark representing two extended wings around a rectangle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43, 44, 50, 51, 58-60)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States – Effect (see para. 64)

5. Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – 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, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d)) (see para. 68)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2019 (Case R 2427/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon and Point Tec Products Electronic.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Actions brought by officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Admissibility – Obligation to rule on claims directed against the decision rejecting the complaint – Claims lacking independent content or purely confirmatory decision – None

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91; Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Art. 42)

(see paras 18, 19)
5.

European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Restrictive measures against Syria – Scope of the review – Proof that the measure is well founded – Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the grounds held against the persons or entities concerned are well founded – Breadth of the discretion of that competent authority – Relevance of evidence produced on the basis of a previous inclusion where there are no amendments to the grounds for inclusion or changes in the applicant’s situation or in the context in Syria (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2019/87, (CFSP) 2019/806 and (CFSP) 2020/719, Annex I; Council Regulations Nos 36/2012, 2019/85, 2019/798 and 2020/716, Annex II) (see paras 81-87, 94)
Officials – Principles – Rights of the defence – Obligation to hear the person concerned before adopting a measure adversely affecting him – Scope – Infringement – Consequences

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2))

(see paras 79-82, 89-92)
Judicial proceedings – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – Plea based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure – Absence – Amplification of an existing plea – No amplification – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1))

(see paras 58-60, 63, 64, 71)
Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Injury – Establishing a causal link – Obligations of the institutions – Calculation of the price undercutting of the imports at issue – Obligation to make a fair comparison between the price of the product concerned and the price of the like product of the EU industry – Comparison of prices obtained at different levels of trade – Infringement – Consequence – Annulment of the regulation imposing anti-dumping duties – Conditions

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Arts 1(1) and 3(2), (3), (5) and (6))

(see paras 64-66, 69-71, 83-91, 94, 103-116, 121-125)
55

First of all, notwithstanding the fact that the Nice Classification was adopted for exclusively administrative purposes, the explanatory notes on the different classes of that classification are relevant in determining the nature and purpose of the goods and services under comparison (see, to that effect, judgments of 23 January 2014, Sunrider v OHIM — Nannerl (SUN FRESH), T‑221/12, not published, EU:T:2014:25, paragraph 31; of 10 September 2014, DTM Ricambi v OHIM — STAR (STAR), T‑199/13, not published, EU:T:2014:761, paragraph 36, and of 8 June 2017, Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel v EUIPO — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel), T‑326/16, not published, EU:T:2017:380, paragraph 45). In particular, where the description of the goods or services for which a mark is registered is so general that it may cover very different goods or services, it is possible to take into account, for the purposes of interpretation or as a precise indication of the designation of the goods or services, the classes in the classification that the trade mark applicants have chosen (see, to that effect, judgments of 25 January 2018, Brunner v EUIPO — CBM (H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE), T‑367/16, not published, EU:T:2018:28, paragraph 50, and of 19 June 2018, Erwin Müller v EUIPO — Novus Tablet Technology Finland (NOVUS), T‑89/17, not published, EU:T:2018:353, paragraph 33). In the present case, the fact that the explanatory note relating to Class 25 of that classification states that that class, which concerns mainly ‘clothing, footwear and headwear for human beings’, does not include, in particular, ‘orthopaedic footwear’, which falls within another class, namely Class 10, which concerns mainly ‘surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus, instruments and articles generally used for the diagnosis, treatment or improvement of function or condition of persons and animals’, leads to the conclusion that orthopaedic footwear or footwear for medical purposes must primarily be regarded as medical apparatus rather than as items of clothing, which they also are, but to a lesser extent. Although orthopaedic footwear or footwear for medical purposes serves to a lesser extent, like all ‘footwear’, to cover and protect the feet, it primarily has the function of correcting physical handicaps of an orthopaedic nature.
80

Second, the applicant observes that the academic publications cited in the proposal relating to the P‑TEV project did not contain, or no longer contained, incorrect images at the time that proposal was submitted in April 2017. Thus, first of all, as regards the Lancet article, the applicant states that it referred to that article to support the fact that tissue-engineered blood vessels do not entail rejection or other serious safety issues. The results referred to in that article are based on an older technology, which is not used by the applicant, under which re-cellularisation is carried out with the use of bone-marrow-derived cells. The applicant observes that, contrary to what is stated in the second pre-information letter, the Lancet article, which contained a minor error relating to a magnified image, was not the subject of a finding of research misconduct by the CEPN and was still published in its original form when the proposal relating to the P‑TEV project was submitted to EASME, since the journal had not deemed it necessary to publish an erratum. Next, as regards the article published in the journal EBioMedicine, the applicant states that that article is the most central reference for the P‑TEV project because it indicates that the clinical results show that tissue engineering using peripheral blood, which corresponds to the technology developed by the applicant, does not in general lead to rejection or to other serious safety risks. The applicant emphasises that the CEPN found no inconsistency in that article that would justify bringing it within the scope of its investigation and the article was therefore not the subject of a finding of research misconduct, as incorrectly stated in the second pre-information letter. Lastly, as regards the article in the Journal of Vascular Surgery, the applicant states that that article was used as a reference for experiments concerning veins with valves, but that its importance was not as great for the P‑TEV project because it did not relate to clinical experiments but to in vitro experiments. The applicant observes that that article was not mentioned in the second pre-information letter, but that it contained incorrect image tables at the time of its publication, which justified the finding of research misconduct by the CEPN. However, the applicant emphasises that that article was the subject of an erratum published by the Journal of Vascular Surgery in March 2017, before being retracted in March 2019 on account of the journal’s policy.
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 – Scope of the examination

(Regulation of the European Parliament and Council 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))

(see para. 13)
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 March 2021 –

Chatwal v EUIPO – Timehouse Capital (THE TIME)

(Case T‑186/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark THE TIME – Earlier EU word mark TIMEHOUSE – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks THE TIME and TIMEHOUSE

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b))

(see paras 31, 37, 40, 43-45)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 January 2020 (Case R 2264/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Timehouse Capital and Chatwal Hotels & Resorts.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2021 –

Oatly v EUIPO (IT’S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS)

(Case T‑253/20)

(EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark IT’S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS – Absolute ground for refusal – 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 – Definition – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20-22)

2. 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 – Distinctive character – Application of specific criteria for assessment – Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 24)

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 – Distinctive character – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 25-28)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Word mark IT’S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 33-35, 44-49)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2020 (Case R 2446/2019-5), regarding an application for registration of the word sign IT’S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 February 2020 (Case R 2446/2019-5), regarding an application for registration of the word sign IT’S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS as an EU trade mark;