ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
42

On 29 July 2016, the Commission adopted Decision (EU) 2017/1861 on State aid SA 33983 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) (ex 2011/N) — Italy — Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations (SGEI) (OJ 2017 L 268, p. 1; ‘the contested decision’), the operative part of which reads as follows: ‘Article 1 1. The scheme that Italy established by … Law [No 10/2010] does not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) [TFEU] in favour of SOGEAAL …, SOGAER … and GEASAR … 2. The scheme that Italy established by Law No 10/2010 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty in favour of Ryanair/AMS, [the applicant], Air Berlin, Meridiana, Alitalia, Air Italy, Volotea, Wizzair, Norwegian, JET2.COM, Niki, Tourparade, Germanwings, Air Baltic and Vueling, in so far as it relates to the operations of those airlines at Cagliari-Elmas airport and Olbia airport. 3. The State aid referred to in paragraph 2 has been put into effect by Italy in breach of Article 108(3) [TFEU]. 4. The State aid referred to in paragraph 2 is incompatible with the internal market. Article 2 1. Italy shall recover the State aid referred to in Article 1(2) from the beneficiaries. 2. Taking into account that Ryanair and AMS constitute a single economic unit for the purpose of the present decision they shall be jointly liable for repayment of the State aid received by either of them. 3. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiaries until their actual recovery. … 5. Italy shall cancel all outstanding payments of the aid referred to in Article 1(2) with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision. Article 3 1. Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1(2) shall be immediate and effective. 2. Italy shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within 4 months following the date of its notification of this Decision. Article 4 1. Within 2 months following notification of this Decision, Italy shall submit the following information: – the list of beneficiaries that have received aid under the scheme referred to in Article 1(2) and the total amount of aid received by each of them under the scheme, – the total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from each beneficiary, – a detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision; – documents demonstrating that the beneficiaries have been ordered to repay the aid. 2. Italy shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 2 has been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request of the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiaries. Article 5 This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.’
82

In its written response of 16 January 2020, in the first place, the Council contended that it was clear from a combined reading of, on the one hand, the judgments of 18 February 2016, Council v Bank Mellat (C‑176/13 P, EU:C:2016:96); and of 21 April 2016, Council v Bank Saderat Iran (C‑200/13 P, EU:C:2016:284); and, on the other, the judgment of 19 December 2018, Azarov v Council (C‑530/17 P, EU:C:2018:1031), that, in some cases, the Council may have been subject to an obligation to verify whether the rights of the defence and right to effective judicial protection had been respected and, as a corollary, the obligation to refer to that verification in the statements of reasons of the acts at issue, and in other cases, it was not subject to such obligations. According to the Council, the difference between Cases C‑176/13 P and C‑200/13 P, on the one hand, and Case C‑530/17 P on the other lay in the fact that, in the first two cases, the entities concerned had not submitted observations in that regard to the Council, whereas in the third case, the person at issue had referred to the abovementioned obligations before the adoption of the contested decision. In the present case, the applicant has not submitted such observations. In the second place, the Council contended that the information in the statements of reasons for Decisions 2018/141 and 2019/135 was sufficient for the purposes of ascertaining whether the decisions were well founded and enabling the EU Courts to review of the legality of those decisions, in accordance with the case-law. Furthermore, those decisions were taken in a context known to the applicant. In the third place, the Council contends that Articles 27, 29 and 108 of the Tunisian Constitution and Articles 13, 47, 50, 59, 66 and 175 of the Tunisian Criminal Code provided guarantees relating to the applicant’s right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and to respect for his rights of defence. Those provisions show that the Tunisian Republic has a legal framework safeguarding those rights and, as they are part of the statements of reasons for those decisions, those provisions fall within a context which is known to the applicant, or at least a context of which he cannot have been unaware.
35

It is apparent from the grounds for those decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal that, where a decision is notified by registered letter, the person to whom it is addressed is deemed to have been notified of it on the basis of the signature which he or she places on the acknowledgment of receipt. However, it may be the case that the acknowledgement of receipt cannot be signed by the recipient where that person, who is not at his or her place of residence at the time when the postman calls, fails to take any action and, in particular, does not collect the letter within the period for which the postal service keeps letters. In such a case, the decision must be regarded as having been duly notified to the person to whom it is addressed on expiry of the period for which the postal service keeps the letter. If it were accepted that, by failing to take any action and, in particular, by not collecting the registered letter within that period, the recipient could prevent the proper notification of a decision by registered letter, the addressee would have a certain discretion in establishing the starting point of the period for initiating proceedings, although such a period may not be left to the discretion of the parties and must meet the requirements of legal certainty and the sound administration of justice (order of 16 December 2010, AG v Parliament, F‑25/10, EU:F:2010:171, paragraphs 41 to 43, and judgment of 30 January 2013, Wahlström v Frontex, F‑87/11, EU:F:2013:10, paragraphs 38 and 39).
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 –

gastivo portal v EUIPO — La Fourchette (Depiction of a fork on a green background)

(Case T‑266/19)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark depicting a fork on a green background — Earlier EU figurative mark gastivo — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18, 42)

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. 19)

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 — Criteria for assessment — Composite mark (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative mark depicting a fork on a green background and figurative mark gastivo (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 39-41, 45-47)

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 — Figurative marks without verbal elements — Phonetic comparison (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 38)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2019 (Case R 1213/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between gastivo portal and La Fourchette.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 –

Bog-Fran v EUIPO — Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ (Furniture)

(Case T‑159/19)

(Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an item of furniture — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Disclosure of the earlier design — Proof of disclosure — Article 7 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

1. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Disclosure to the public — Exception — Facts not reasonably capable of being known to specialist circles of the sector concerned (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 19)

2. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Previous disclosure of identical design — Proof of the disclosure (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 7 and 65(1); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(v) and (vi)) (see paras 20-22)

3. Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — No individual character — Previous disclosure of identical design — Representation of an item of furniture (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 7(1)) (see paras 29, 39, 42, 43)

4. Community designs — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61(3)) (see para. 45)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 (Case R 291/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bog-Fran and Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 January 2019 (Case R 291/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k. and Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A.;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bog-Fran;
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 — Degree of attention of the relevant public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 19)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 March 2020 –

Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Heretat Mont-Rubi (SUM011)

(Case T‑296/19)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SUM011 — Earlier EU figurative mark Sumol and earlier national word mark SUMOL — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Alteration of a decision of the Office — Assessment in the light of the powers conferred on the Board of Appeal (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3)) (see paras 18-22)

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 — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 27)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 44)

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 — Complementary nature of the goods or services (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 41)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2019 (Case R 1662/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Sumol + Compal Marcas and Heretat Mont-Rubi.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Assessment of distinctiveness- Criteria

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

(see paras 44, 50)
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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 24)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility

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

(see paras 20, 21)
Officials – Working conditions – Allowance for continuous working or shiftwork – Conditions for granting – Implementation of an internal regulation providing for the division of the 24-hour day into three time slots and establishing several shifts during those time slots – Whether permissible

(Staff Regulations, Art. 56a; Council Regulation No 300/76, as amended by Regulation No 1873/2006, Art. 1(1))

(see paras 108, 110-113)
Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 September 2020 – Aldi v EUIPO (BBQ BARBECUE SEASON)

(Case T‑522/19)

(EU trade mark – Application for the EU figurative mark BBQ BARBECUE SEASON – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

1. European Union trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the European Union trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Concept (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 13)

2. European Union trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the European Union 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. 14)

3. European Union trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the European Union 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 15, 16, 20)

4. European Union trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the European Union trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Concept of characteristic (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 17)

5. European Union 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 BBQ BARBECUE SEASON (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 29, 36)

6. European Union trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the European Union trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Meaning – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 41-44)

7. European Union trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the European Union trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Figurative mark BBQ BARBECUE SEASON (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 46-48)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 May 2019 (Case R 1359/2018-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BBQ BARBECUE SEASON as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2020 –

Totalizator Sportowy v EUIPO – Lottoland Holdings (Lottoland)

(Case T‑820/19)

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark Lottoland – Earlier national figurative marks LOTTO and Lotto – Earlier national word mark lotto – Declaration of partial invalidity – Relative ground for refusal – No damage to reputation – No link between the marks at issue – Article 8(5) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Link between the marks – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 25-27, 29, 30, 35-37)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Link between the marks – Criteria for assessment – Account taken of the nature of the goods or services in question (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 28)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Word mark Lottoland – Figurative marks LOTTO and Lotto and word mark lotto (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 8(5) and 60(1)(a)) (see paras 43, 60, 62-64, 66, 68)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2019 (Case R 97/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Totalizator Sportowy and Lottoland Holdings.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
2.

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Refusal to register where there is a relative ground for refusal, even if limited to part of the Union (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 20)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 November 2020 –

BMC v Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking

(Case T‑71/19)

(Research and technological development and space – Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ‘Horizon 2020’ (2014-2020) – Procedure for call for proposals H2020-CS 2-CFP08-FRC‑2018-01 – Rejection of the proposal submitted by the applicant – Assignment of non-integer scores – Article 15(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 – Obligation to state reasons – Manifest error of assessment – Misuse of powers – Failure to sufficiently examine the proposal – Distortion of the facts)

1. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Subject matter – Scope (Arts 263, fourth para., and 296 TFEU) (see paras 49-51)

2. Action for annulment – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Meaning (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 68)

3. Industry – Action necessary to ensure the competitiveness of industry – Research and technological development – Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation – Assessment of projects submitted following a call for proposals – Judicial review – Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation 1290/2013, Art. 15) (see paras 73-77)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the joint undertaking Clean Sky 2 of 10 October 2018 rejecting proposal No 831874 ‘smart De-icing bARrier Filter (DwARF)’ submitted by the applicant in call for proposals H2020-CS 2-CFP08-FRC‑2018-01 and of its decision of 6 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for a review of the assessment of that proposal and confirming the decision [of] 10 October 2018 by which it rejected that proposal.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;