ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2021 –

West End Drinks v EUIPO – Pernod Ricard (The King of SOHO)

(Case T‑31/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark The King of SOHO – Earlier EU word mark SOHO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings – Persons whose claims are not upheld by a decision – Decision upholding an opposition to registration of a trade mark, based on part of the arguments presented – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(4)) (see paras 21,22)

2. EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Genuine use – Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark – Subject matter and material scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Examination of alteration of distinctive character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1), second subpara. (a)) (see paras 36-38)

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 The King of SOHO and word mark SOHO (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 77, 92, 103, 117, 131)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 October 2019 (Case R 1543/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Pernod Ricard and West End Drinks.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Dismisses the cross-claim as inadmissible;

3. With regard to the main action, orders West End Drinks Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred, in the context of the present proceedings, by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Pernod Ricard;
European Parliament – Members – Payment of expenses and allowances – Parliamentary assistance allowances – Check relating to the use of parliamentary assistance expenses – Burden of proof

(Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, Art. 33(1) and (2))

(see paras 41, 42)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 June 2021 –

Global Chartered Controller Institute v EUIPO – CFA Institute (CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE)

(Case T‑266/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE – Earlier EU word mark CFA and earlier EU figurative mark CFA CHARTERED FINANCIAL ANALYST – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Relevant public – Level of attention)

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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 27)

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 paras 31, 33, 34)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 35, 38-40, 42, 45-48)

4. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3)) (see paras 54, 56)

5. Judicial proceedings – Costs – Recoverable costs (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 190(2)) (see para. 61)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 (Case R 235/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between CFA Institute and Global Chartered Controller Institute.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 February 2020 (Case R 235/2019-5);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Global Chartered Controller Institute SL, with the exception of the costs incurred by the latter before the Board of Appeal, which are reserved;
Action 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

(Art. 266 TFEU; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 72(6))

(see paras 29, 30)
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Word mark NOMAD

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c))

(see paras 65, 66, 74, 90, 116, 120)
Actions brought by officials – Staff of the European Central Bank – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Obligation to implement – Annulment, on the basis of procedural irregularity, of an appraisal report – Adoption of an identical act complying with the procedural rules – Whether permissible – Observance of the principle of good faith – Need for an effective reappraisal of the applicant’s merits

(Art. 266 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1))

(see paras 37-46, 52, 57)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2021 –

Guo v EUIPO – Sand Cph (sandriver)

(Case T‑505/20)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark sandriver – Earlier EU word mark SAND – 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 – 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 – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 19, 20, 23, 88)

2. 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 – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see para. 30)

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 – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 36, 37)

4. 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark – Element common to two marks having an independent distinctive role in the later mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 39, 43-45, 60, 73)

5. 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 – Figurative mark sandriver and word mark SAND (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(b), and 53(1)(a)) (see paras 93-97)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2020 (Case R 2019/2019-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Sand Cph and Ms Guo.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when lodging the trade mark application – Criteria for assessment – Taking into account of all relevant factors at the time of filing the application for registration – Applicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar sign – Intention of the applicant

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(2) and (4) and 52(1)(b))

(see paras 15, 16, 78)
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 October 2021 –

Sedus Stoll v EUIPO – Kappes (Sedus ergo+)

(Case T‑429/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Sedus ergo+ – Earlier national word mark ERGOPLUS – Relative ground for refusal – No 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 18, 19, 70-72)

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 paras 24, 25)

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 of the marks concerned – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36-41)

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 – Word marks Sedus ergo+ and ERGOPLUS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 57, 78-84, 88)

5. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU Courts – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3)) (see para. 86)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2020 (Case R 1303/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Kappes and Sedus Stoll.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 March 2020 (Case R 1303/2019-1);

2. Dismisses the appeal brought before EUIPO by Wolfgang Kappes;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sedus Stoll AG for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;
Judicial proceedings – Admissibility of actions – Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged – Decision replacing the contested decision during the proceedings – Adaptation of initial forms of order sought and pleas in law

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 86)

(see paras 22, 23)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 December 2021 –

Ruiz-Ruiz v Commission

(Case T‑293/20)

(Civil service – Officials – Recruitment – Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 – Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition – Admission criterion related to professional experience – Compliance of criterion applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice – Manifest error of assessment)

1. Officials – Competitions – Competition based on qualifications and tests – Conditions for admission – Diplomas produced or professional experience attested – Discretion of the selection board – Determination of assessment criteria – Whether permissible – Limits – Adherence to the notice of competition – Adoption of a criterion inconsistent with the notice of competition – Not permissible (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Arts 1(1) and 5(1)) (see paras 33, 34, 39, 47)

2. Actions brought by officials – Pleas in law – Manifest error of assessment – Meaning (see para. 60)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the Selection Board of 20 September 2019 refusing the applicant’s request for review of the decision not to admit her to the next phase of the open competition EPSO/AD/371/19 and, secondly, of the decision of the appointing authority of 7 February 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 20 September 2019 refusing the request for review of Ms Vanesa Ruiz-Ruiz’s exclusion from competition EPSO/AD/371/19;
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2021 –

Spisto v Commission

(Case T‑572/20)

(Civil service – Officials – Recruitment – Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19 – Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition – Criterion to assess professional experience – Compliance of criterion applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice)

1. Officials – Competitions – Competition based on qualifications and tests – Conditions for admission – Fixing by the competition notice – Selection board’s assessment of candidates’ professional experience – Judicial review – Limits (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III) (see para. 30)

2. Officials – Competitions – Competition based on qualifications and tests – Conditions for admission – Fixing by the competition notice – Selection board’s assessment of candidates’ professional experience – Recourse to an assessment criterion not set out as selection criterion in the competition notice – Not permissible (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Arts 1(1) and 5, first para.) (see paras 31, 33, 35, 42-44, 48)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of, first, the decision of the Selection Board of 24 September 2019 rejecting the request for a review of the refusal to admit the applicant to the next phase of Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19, and, second, the decision of the appointing authority of 26 May 2020 rejecting the complaint of the applicant against that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 24 September 2019 rejecting the request for a review of the exclusion of Ms Amanda Spisto from Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2021 –

EFFAS v EUIPO – CFA Institute (CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst)

(Case T‑369/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst – Earlier EU word mark CFA – Relative ground for refusal – 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 19-21)

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 – Education and training services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 29, 31)

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 – Word marks CEFA Certified European Financial Analyst and CFA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 34, 35, 47-49)

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 – Likelihood of association – Earlier marks exhibiting characteristics enabling them to be regarded as forming part of the same series or family – Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 45)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2020 (Case R 1082/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between CFA Institute and EFFAS.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 31 March 2020 (R 1082/2019-5);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by European Federation of Financial Analysts’ Societies (EFFAS);
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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 25)
Actions brought by officials – Pleas in law – Plea in law alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty – Reliance on the inability to understand the procedure for updating the correction coefficients – Rejection

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 64 and 65 and Annex XI)

(see paras 104-108)
2.

Officials – Remuneration – Family allowances – Dependent child allowance – Conditions for granting – Actual maintenance – Evidence-based assessment – Bank transfers benefiting a child receiving a study grant – Taking account of the child’s income in the light of a predetermined income threshold – Limits – Obligation for the administration to examine the specific circumstances of each particular case – Scope – Taking account of the type of study grant and the sickness insurance scheme subscribed to for the child – Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 2(2) and (3)(b)) (see paras 35-41, 48-51, 60, 61, 64-68)
2.

Common foreign and security policy – 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 identify in the statement of reasons individual and specific reasons justifying such measures – Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him or her to understand the scope of the measure taken against him or her (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109, Annex II; Council Regulations No 1183/2005 and No 2019/2101, Annex) (see paras 54, 60-65, 67)
Community designs – Grounds 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 earlier design

(Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and (2) and 25(1)(b))

(see paras 47, 48)
2.

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 – Refusal to grant access (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), 3rd indent) (see paras 29-32, 34)
1.

EU budget – EU financial assistance – Obligation on the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the assistance – Funding only for expenses actually incurred – Evidence of the actual expenses declared – Staff costs – Production of the time records – Allocation of the burden of proof (Art. 272 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002) (see paras 52, 56, 57, 63, 69, 80)
Officials – Non-contractual liability of the institutions – Conditions – Compensation for loss caused to an official or member of staff – Duty of the administration to have regard for the welfare of officials – Scope

(Arts 268, 270 and 340, second para., TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

(see paras 65, 66)
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Boards of Appeal – Classification of the Office as an administration – Right of the parties to a fair trial – None

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)

(see para. 55)
By letter of 3 September 2020, the Commission rejected the applicants’ complaint of 20 June 2020 concerning unlawful State aid to the applicants’ photovoltaic plants (‘the contested decision’), stating inter alia as follows:

‘The [Directorate-General for Competition] considers that your complaint must be rejected on the ground that the subject matter does not fall within the scope of Articles 12(1) and 24(2) of [Regulation 2015/1589].

…

… the Complainants asked the Commission to make a finding as to the compatibility of the aid schemes, as if they represented France in a quasi-notification procedure. Accordingly, the subject matter of your complaint does not fall within the scope of Articles 12(1) and 24(2) of [Regulation No 2015/1589] and must for that reason be rejected.

…

We thank you for the information you have supplied. The Commission will record it as general market information.’