ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Limitation of the list of products and services after the decision of the Board of Appeal – Consequences

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 188; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 49(1))

(see paras 17, 18)
Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Principles – Rights of the defence – Scope – Obligation to hear the person concerned before adoption of a decision dismissing that person on grounds connected with the relationship of mutual trust – Scope

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 2(c))

(see paras 29, 37-39, 41-43)
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 March 2021 –

Tehrani v EUIPO – Blue Genes (Earnest Sewn)

(Case T‑853/19)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark Earnest Sewn – Declaration of invalidity – Absolute ground for refusal – Bad faith – Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when lodging the trade mark application – Concept of bad faith – Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 19-22)

2. 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 – Degree of legal protection of the signs at issue – Origin and use of the sign in dispute – Commercial logic underlying the registration of the contested sign as an EU trade mark – Chronology of events characterising the filing of the trade mark application (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 23-26, 31, 69)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when lodging the trade mark application – Word mark Earnest Sewn (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 55, 61, 72)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 (Case R 531/2018-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Blue Genes and Mr Tehrani.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision refusing to register a proposal for a European citizens’ initiative – Commission pleading manifest lack of legislative attributions in relation to the measures proposed – No invitation to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union – No infringement of the obligation to state reasons

(Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 211/2011, Arts 2(1) and 4(2)(b) and (3), second para.)

(see paras 22-32)
Common foreign and security policy – Specific restrictive measures against certain persons and bodies in view of the situation in Syria – Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Regulation No 36/2012 – Criteria for adopting restrictive measures – Support provided to and benefit derived from the Syrian regime – Concept – Autonomous legal criterion – Inclusion on the lists based on a specific, precise and consistent set of indicia

(Art. 29 TEU; Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2015/1836 and (CFSP) 2019/87, Arts 27(2)(a) and (3) and 28(2)(a) and (3); Council Regulations No 36/2012, Arts 15(1a)(a) and (1b), 2015/1828 and 2019/85)

(see paras 31, 32, 65, 125, 126, 151)
Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD financing – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenses arising from irregularities in applying EU rules – Assessment of the losses incurred by the EAGGF – Obligation on the Commission to establish the existence of a genuine loss by the Fund – None

(Council Regulation No 1290/2005, Art. 31(2); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1306/2013, Art. 52(2))

(see para. 44)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 June 2021 –

Hill Mansilla v Commission

(Case T‑575/19)

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2018 promotion exercise – Decision not to promote – Comparative examination of the merits – Assessment criteria – Manifest error of assessment – Equal treatment – Non-discrimination)

1. Officials – Reports procedure – Appraisal report – Discretion of assessors – Obligation to observe scrupulously the rules governing the organisation of the assessment procedure (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 45(1)) (see paras 69, 70)

2. Officials – Promotion – Criteria – Merits – Taking into consideration of language skills – Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 45(1)) (see para. 107)

3. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Directive 2000/43 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin – Direct imposition of obligations on EU institutions in relations with their staff – Precluded – Invocability – Scope (Art. 288, third para., TFEU; Council Directive 2000/43, Art. 2(2)(b)) (see paras 154, 155)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 November 2018 not to include the applicant’s name in the final list of promoted officials in the 2018 promotion exercise and, second, compensation for the non-material and material damages allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Officials – Accredited parliamentary assistants – Dismissal on grounds connected with the relationship of mutual trust – Obligation to state reasons – Discretion of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment – Scope

(Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 2(c), 127 and 139(1))

(see paras 44-50, 56, 64, 65)
Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of EU law – Requirement that the institutions manifestly and seriously disregard the limits of their discretion – Adoption by the Commission of a delegated regulation laying down a method for calculating the energy performance of vacuum cleaners based on an empty receptacle – Basic legislative act imposing an obligation on the Commission to adopt a calculation method based on the use of a dust-loaded receptacle – Existence of legitimate doubts regarding whether that method satisfies the criteria of scientific validity and accuracy of the information supplied to consumers – No sufficiently serious breach

(Arts 290 and 340, second para., TFEU; Commission Regulation No 665/2013; European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/30, Art. 10(1))

(see paras 36-38, 43-45, 52, 81, 82, 94-99)
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2021 –

AH v Eurofound

(Case T‑630/19)

(Civil service – Members of the contract staff – Psychological harassment – Request for assistance – Action for annulment – Lis pendens – Interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility – Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint – Obligation to state reasons – Lack of competence of the author of an act – Error of assessment – Liability – Non-material damage)

1. Actions brought by officials – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action by an official who is the alleged victim of psychological harassment against a refusal to grant a request for assistance – Admissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see paras 37-39)

2. EU agencies – European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) – Staff – Adoption of decisions – Competence of the director of Eurofound – Possibility of replacement by the Deputy Director – Scope (Council Regulation No 1860/76, Art. 53) (see paras 69-71)

3. Officials – Decision to close without further action an administrative investigation opened in response to a request for assistance in respect of psychological harassment – Obligation to state reasons – Scope (Art. 296 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25) (see paras 75-82)

4. Officials – Rights and obligations – Internal inquiry into alleged psychological harassment – Requirement of impartiality – Scope – Challenge by the alleged victim – Burden of proof (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41) (see para. 98)

5. 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 – Scope – Plea based on matters which are known and alleged at the time the action was brought – Not included (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1) and (2)) (see paras 109-113)

6. Actions brought by officials – Admissibility criteria – Dismissal of an action on the substance without ruling on admissibility – Discretion of the Courts of the Union (see para. 128)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of Eurofound of 9 November 2018 closing the administrative investigation AI-2018/01 opened following the applicant’s request for assistance in respect of alleged psychological harassment on the part of his superiors, and second, compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Officials – Members of the contract staff – Social security – Sickness insurance – Conditions of cover – Obligation to have been employed for more than three years – Possibility to compensate for insufficient years of service by transferring nationally acquired pension rights – Precluded – Infringement of the right to equal treatment in social security matters – No breach

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 34(1) and 52(5); Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 72(2) and 2a, and 77; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 95)

(see paras 37-39, 46-56)
103

In any event, as the Court acknowledged in paragraph 98 above, the applicant has properly demonstrated that he occupied the position of Head of Executive Directors within Aman Holding and not that of Vice President. In that regard, it must be noted that the applicant is well placed in the company’s organisation chart, that a certain degree of authority has been delegated to him and that he is responsible for supervising the executive directors and thus executing Aman Holding’s strategic decisions, but he remains an employee of Aman Holding, which is not disputed by the Council. Furthermore, the applicant rightly claims that the tasks entrusted to him as an employee of Aman Holding never included supervision of Aman Dimashq’s activities. That task is reserved to another employee, namely Mr Assi, who, for that purpose, was appointed chairman of the board of Aman Dimashq in order to keep Aman Holding’s board of directors informed of Aman Dimashq’s development, which is, in essence, confirmed by the page taken from Damascus Cham Holding’s website ‘Damacham.sy’. It is therefore common ground between the parties that the applicant does not sit on the board of Aman Dimashq. Moreover, it is indeed apparent from Mr Assi’s employment contract, dated 4 October 2017 and produced by the applicant, that his position as project manager is carried out under the direction of, inter alia, the Head of Executive Directors of Aman Holding. Nevertheless, neither documents WK 47/2019 INIT and WK 3600/2020 REV 1 nor the Council’s pleadings prove that there was a supervisory relationship between the applicant and Mr Assi in relation to the conduct of the Marota City project on the date of adoption of the contested measures. Accordingly, the Council has not shown that the applicant’s duties within Aman Holding include the exercise of decision-making responsibilities in the context of Aman Holding’s majority shareholding on the board of Aman Dimashq.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 November 2020 –

Deutsche Post v EUIPO – Pošta Slovenije (Representation of a stylised horn)

(Case T‑25/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing a stylised horn – Earlier EU figurative mark representing a post horn on a yellow background – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Lack of distinctive character of the earlier mark – 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 17, 18, 48-50)

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 – Degree of distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26, 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 representing a stylised horn – Figurative mark representing a postal horn on a yellow background (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37, 47, 57)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2019 (Case R 994/2019-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Post and Pošta Slovenije.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
2.

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1) and 94(1)) (see paras 26-28, 68)
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 – Concept – Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 21, 29, 39, 62)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 March 2021 –

Kfz-Gewerbe v EUIPO – The Blink Fish (Representation of a fish)

(Case T‑354/20)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark representing a fish – Earlier national word mark BLINKA – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)

1. 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 – Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence) (see paras 17, 21)

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 – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a)) (see paras 30-32, 36, 43, 49, 63)

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 – Figurative mark representing a fish and word mark BLINKA (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a)) (see paras 33, 38, 44, 52, 67-70)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 (Case R 2333/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes and The Blink Fish.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2021 –

Chanel v EUIPO – Innovative Cosmetic Concepts (INCOCO)

(Case T‑196/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark INCOCO – Earlier national word marks COCO – 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 23, 24)

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 25, 52, 73, 74)

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 – Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 29)

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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Distinctiveness or reputation of the earlier mark – Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 38-43, 78-81, 93)

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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks INCOCO and COCO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 45, 60, 67, 77, 94)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2020 (Case R 194/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Chanel and Innovative Cosmetic Concepts.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 January 2020 (Case R 194/2019-1);
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 July 2021 –

Kneissl Holding v EUIPO – LS 9 (KNEISSL)

(Case T‑65/20)

(EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark KNEISSL – Partial revocation – No genuine use of the mark – Extent of use – Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 10(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) – Abuse of rights)

1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Proof of use – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a)) (see paras 26-34, 48, 49)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Causes of revocation – Absence of genuine use of a trade mark – Word mark KNEISSL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a)) (see paras 43-45, 52-54, 61, 62, 65-67)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Application for revocation – Admissibility – Conditions – Interest in bringing proceedings (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 56(1)(a)) (see para. 76)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2019 (Case R 2265/2018-2), relating to revocation proceedings between LS 9 and Kneissl Holding.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decision – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU

(Art. 296 TFEU; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)

(see para. 82)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2021 –

Aldi v EUIPO (Cachet)

(Case T‑622/20)

(EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark Cachet – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 13)

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 – Meaning (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 15)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16, 17)

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 – Word mark Cachet (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 25, 29-31)

5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Word mark Cachet (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2020 (Case R 452/2020-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Cachet as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 August 2020 (Case R 452/2020-4) in so far as it concerns the ‘sanitary preparations for medical purposes’ referred to in the trade mark application;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;