ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
80

First, as regards the surveys relied on by the applicant, it must be held that the Board of Appeal was correct to find, in paragraph 51 of the contested decision, that those surveys were not capable of proving that the mark applied for had acquired distinctive character throughout the European Union in respect of a significant part of the relevant public. The surveys were conducted in 10 EU Member States, namely Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal and the United Kingdom, even though the European Union had 27 Member States at the date on which the application for registration was lodged. It is true that the surveys in question concluded that the mark applied for had acquired a distinctive character in the 10 Member States where they were carried out, with the recognition rate being between 48% (Poland) and 79% (Spain); however, they did not establish that that was also the case in the other 17 Member States. The results of those surveys cannot be extrapolated to the 17 Member States in which no surveys were conducted. In that regard, it must be pointed out that, particularly in respect of the countries that became members of the European Union after 2004, the surveys provide almost no information regarding the perception of the relevant public in those Member States. Even though surveys were conducted in Poland and Estonia, there is no justification for extrapolating the conclusions relating to those two countries to the other states which became members of the European Union after 2004. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated that certain Member State markets covered by the surveys are comparable to others and that the results of those surveys could be extrapolated to them. It is not for the Court to make assumptions in that regard.
59

In that regard, the Court notes that, in the sphere of the common commercial policy and, most particularly, in the realm of measures to protect trade, the institutions of the European Union enjoy a broad discretion by reason of the complexity of the economic and political situations which they have to examine. The judicial review of such an appraisal must therefore be limited to verifying whether the procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts on which the contested choice is based have been accurately stated, and whether there has been a manifest error in the appraisal of those facts or a misuse of power. The same applies to factual situations of a legal and political nature in the country concerned which the EU institutions must assess in order to determine whether an exporter operates under market conditions without significant State interference and may, accordingly, be granted MET. However, whilst, in the sphere of measures to protect trade, in particular anti-dumping measures, the EU judicature cannot interfere in the assessment reserved to the EU authorities, except in the case of a manifest error of assessment or misuse of powers, its task is nevertheless to satisfy itself that the institutions have taken account of all the relevant circumstances and appraised the facts of the matter with all due care (see judgment of 18 September 2012 in Since Hardware (Guangzhou) v Council, T‑156/11, ECR, EU:T:2012:431, paragraphs 182 to 184 and the case-law cited).
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 16 March 2016 —

Hydrex v Commission

(Case T‑45/15)

‛Grant agreement relating to a project concerning a financial instrument for the environment — Recovery order — Enforceable decision within the meaning of Article 299 TFEU — Obligation to state reasons — Errors of assessment — Force majeure’

1. Actions for annulment — Action against a decision forming a writ of execution — Decision open to challenge on the basis of Article 263 TFEU — Admissibility — Pleas relating to contractual stipulations and the applicable national law — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU and 299 TFEU) (see paras 24, 25, 39, 49, 50)

2. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality (Arts 263 TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see paras 27, 28, 32)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him to understand the scope of the measure taken against him — Whether a summary statement of reasons is sufficient (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 27, 29-31)

4. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Similar requirements for submissions made in support of a plea — Imprecise formulation of a claim — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(1)) (see paras 43-46)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 103 final of 12 January 2015 relating to recovery order No 3241405101 issued against the applicant and involving an amount of EUR 540721.10.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 December 2015 —

Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt)

(Case T‑63/15)

‛Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b), and (3)) (see paras 13-15)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Registration of a new trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1)(b), and 76(1)) (see para. 16)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark representing two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 32)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see para. 31)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2014 (Case R 2560/2013-5), concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of two parallel stripes on the long sleeves of a shirt as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
4.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 25)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 April 2016 —

Facchinello v EUIPO — Olimpia Splendid (Synthesis)

(Case T‑81/15)

‛EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark Synthesis — No genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court’

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 23)

2. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — No genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a)) (see paras 32-37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2014 (Case R 2169/2013-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Olimpia Splendid SpA and Ms Danila Facchinello.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2.
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 December 2016 — EK/servicegroup v EUIPO (FERLI)

(Case T‑775/15)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark FERLI — Requirement of clarity — Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rights of the defence — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark — Lodging of application for EU trade mark — Identification of the goods or services concerned by the trade mark — Requirements of clarity and precision — Determination, by the competent authorities and the economic operators, of the extent of the protection conferred by the trade mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 28; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 2(2)) (see paras 28, 29, 32)

2. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality (see para. 50)

3. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 57)

4. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see paras 58, 59)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2015 (Case R 1233/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign FERLI as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 May 2016 —

Bodegas Williams & Humbert v EUIPO — Central Hisumer (BOTANIC WILLIAMS & HUMBERT LONDON DRY GIN)

(Case T‑193/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BOTANIC WILLIAMS & HUMBERT LONDON DRY GIN — Earlier EU word mark THE BOTANICALS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 17, 69)

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, 29)

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 BOTANIC WILLIAMS & HUMBERT LONDON DRY GIN and word mark THE BOTANICALS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 35, 65, 70)

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

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 — Visual similarity between a figurative mark and a word mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 51)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2015 (Case R 594/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Central Hisumer and Bodegas Williams & Humbert.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 1 December 2016 —

Z v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T‑532/15 P)

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Staff report — Impartiality of the Civil Service Tribunal — Application for recusal of the members of the formation of the Tribunal which delivered judgment — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection)

1. EU law—Principles—Fundamental rights—Compliance ensured by the EU judicature—Taking into consideration the European Convention on Human Rights—Right to fair legal process—Scope (Art. 6(3) TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see paras 26, 27)

2. Appeal—Pleas in law—Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments presented before the Civil Service Tribunal—Inadmissibility (Art. 257, third para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 194(1)(e)) (see paras 52, 65)

3. Officials—Reports procedure—Staff report—Discretion of the assessors—Judicial review—Limits (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) (see para. 72)

4. Appeal—Grounds—Review by the General Court of the Civil Service Tribunal’s refusal to order measures of organisation of procedure or inquiry—Scope (Art. 256(2) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11) (see para. 83)

Re:

APPEAL brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015, Z v Court of Justice (F‑64/13, EU:F:2015:72), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

5 July 2016

European Medicines Agency (EMA)

v

Emil Hristov

and

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Appointment — Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency — EMA — Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel — Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board — Composition of the pre-selection panel — Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board — Impartiality’

Appeal:

against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F‑2/12, EU:F:2014:245), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Held:

The judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F‑2/12), is set aside in part, in so far as it annulled the decision of the Management Board of the EMA of 6 October 2011, appointing the Executive Director of the EMA. It is no longer necessary to adjudicate on the application to have set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F‑2/12) in so far as it annulled the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011, pursuant to which the Commission proposed to the Management Board of the EMA a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments. The case is referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling on the claim for annulment of the decision of the Management Board of the EMA of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA, in view of the heads of claim and pleas in law relied on by Mr Emil Hristov on which the Civil Service Tribunal did not adjudicate. The costs are reserved.

Summary

Appeal — Appeal held to be well founded — Judgment to be given on the substance by the appeal court — Condition — State of the proceedings must permit final judgment to be given — Condition not met — Referral of the matter back to the Civil Service Tribunal

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 13(1))

In the context of an appeal against a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, in accordance with Article 13(1) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the General Court, having set aside the contested judgment in so far as it annulled a decision of an institution, refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal in order for it to rule on the heads of claim and pleas in law advanced at first instance on which the Civil Service Tribunal did not adjudicate.

(see paras 29, 30)

See:

Judgment of 5 July 2016 in Commission v Hristov, T‑26/15 P, EU:T:2016:390, paras 62 to 64
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 11 October 2016 —

Perry Ellis International Group v EUIPO — CG (p)

(Case T‑350/15)

‛EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark likely to be perceived as the letter ‘p’ — Earlier EU and national figurative marks P PROTECTIVE and P — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 16-19, 53)

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 24, 25, 42)

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 likely to be perceived as the letter ‘p’ — Figurative marks P PROTECTIVE and P (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-35, 38, 39, 45-47, 63, 64)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Signs of which a trade mark may consist — Signs composed of a letter or combination of letters — 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, Arts 4, 7 and 8(1)(b)) (see paras 56, 57)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2015 (Case R 2441/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between CG Verwaltungsgesellschaft and Perry Ellis International Group Holdings.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 —

Fruit of the Loom v EUIPO — Takko (FRUIT)

(Case T‑431/15)

‛EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark FRUIT — Genuine use of a mark — Article 15 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — External use of the mark’

1. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), and 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 22(2), and 40(5)) (see paras 20-23, 25-28, 48-50, 52, 58-63, 78)

2. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Concept — Criteria for assessment — Requirement of solid and objective evidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), and 51(1)(a); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 22(2), and 40(5)) (see para. 24)

3. EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Word mark FRUIT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 15(1), and 51(1)) (see paras 51, 57, 64, 73-77, 79-86)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2015 (Case R 1641/2014-2) relating to revocation proceedings between Takko Holding and Fruit of the Loom.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 May 2015 (Case R 1641/2014-2);
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 enjoying a reputation — Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services — Conditions — Reputation of the mark in the Member State or the EU — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 35-38, 45)
1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 September 2015 (Case R 1954/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA and YTL Hotels & Properties Sdn Bhd in so far as it rejects the opposition to registration of the European Union word mark SPA VILLAGE, in respect of ‘services consisting of the provision of food and drink; cafés restaurants; cafeterias; snack-bars; self-service restaurants; hotel restaurant services; restaurant services; catering and buffet services; bar services; hotel services’ in Class 43 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;