ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 — Degree of attention of the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 28, 29)
Appeal — Cross-appeal — Subject-matter — Claim for annulment of a judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing an objection of inadmissibility raised against an action finally dismissed as unfounded — Admissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 204(2); Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 9)

(see para. 43)
Actions brought by officials — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Assessment — Challenge — Conciliation procedure — Possibility of bringing an action before the EU Judicature before closure of the proceedings

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91; Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 41)

(see paras 30-33)
Appeal — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — General Court’s review of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58 and Annex I, Art. 11(1))

(see paras 25, 26, 44)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2017 —

sheepworld v EUIPO (Bester Opa)

(Case T‑449/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Bester Opa — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Concept—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Marks constituted of advertising slogans—Distinctive character—Application of specific criteria for assessment—Not permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21-23)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Marks constituted of advertising slogans—Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 26)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Marks constituted of advertising slogans—Slogan with a fantasy character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 25)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Word mark Bester Opa (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 28-32)

6. EU trade mark—Decisions of the Office—Principle of equal treatment—Principle of sound administration—EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice—Principle of legality—Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see para. 46)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2016 (Case R 92/2016-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Bester Opa as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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, Arts 7(1), and 75, first sentence)

(see paras 50-52)
Approximation of laws—Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—REACH Regulation—Fees due to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)—Reduction in the fee granted to small and medium-sized undertakings—Determination of the size of an enterprise—ECHA’s verification of the undertaking’s declaration—Lack of demonstration by the undertaking of its status of small or medium-sized enterprise—Consequences—Imposition of the fee applicable to large enterprises—Challenge before the EU courts on the basis of documents not submitted to the ECHA—Rejection

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Art. 74(3); Commission Regulation No 340/2008, eleventh recital and Art. 13(3) and (4))

(see paras 32-37, 40)
Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2017 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden)

(Case T‑777/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden — Earlier EU word mark Isocell, earlier international word mark Isocell and earlier international and national word marks ISOCELL — 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 18, 19, 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—Figurative mark iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden—Word marks Isocell and ISOCELL (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 30, 37, 40, 41, 43)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 (Case R 181/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Isocell and iCell.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Appeal—Pleas in law—Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal—Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

(see para. 34)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2017 – Mapei v EUIPO – Steenfabrieken Vandersanden (RE-CONzerø)

(Case T-723/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark RE-CONzerø — Earlier EU word mark ZERO — 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) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(3)) (see para. 14)

2. EU trade mark–Procedural provisions–Statement of reasons for decisions–First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009–Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU–Essential formality (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 18, 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–Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark–Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 58)

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 paras 26, 34, 35)

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 between the goods or services in question–Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 30)

6. 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 RE-CONzerø and word mark ZERO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 49-52, 56, 57, 59, 60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 (Case R 2374/2015‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Steenfabrieken Vandersanden and Mapei.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
It follows from the general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations adopted by the Commission that an official who satisfies the first four conditions of that article, but whose staff report has not become final, is nonetheless to be regarded as eligible for promotion where that report could not be finalised owing to a delay for which he could not be held responsible. In that situation, the official concerned is to take part in the promotion procedure on the basis of other valid information replacing the staff report.

Accordingly, by refusing to acknowledge the applicant’s right to take part in the promotion procedure, on the ground that his justified absence on sick leave had not allowed some of his staff reports to be completed, the appointing authority infringed that provision and erred in law.

In that regard, the interpretation of that provision, whereby the appointing authority refuses to allow the official concerned to take part in the relevant promotion procedure on the basis of information replacing his staff reports and makes such participation conditional upon his resuming his duties, does not take account of situations where that official might not resume his duties in time, or even might never resume his duties.

In addition, the appointing authority is required to organise a promotion exercise each year and may not delay, by several years, an official’s participation in the promotion procedure for that promotion exercise when that official is eligible for promotion under the general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, cited above.

(see paras 24, 27, 31, 32)
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2017 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Ascendo Medienagentur (SLIMDYNAMICS)

(Case T‑700/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark SLIMDYNAMICS — Earlier national word mark DYNAMIN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — 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, 20, 71, 72, 77)

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 para. 22)

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 SLIMDYNAMICS and word mark DYNAMIN (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 40, 69, 80)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 26)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 41, 42)

6. EU trade mark—Decisions of the Office—Legality—Examination by the EU judicature—Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 54)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2016 (Joined Cases R 1814/2015-4 and R 1780/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Ascendo Medienagentur,

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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, Arts 7(1) and 75, first sentence)

(see paras 16-20)
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; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence)

(see paras 21, 22)
In accordance with Article 55(1) of Regulation No 2100/94 on plant variety types and Article 13(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2009 establishing implementing rules for the application of Regulation No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO), the Administrative Council of the CPVO is empowered to entrust the responsibility for the technical examination of varieties of the species concerned to one or several competent offices in a Member State.

The unambiguous and preliminary designation of the examination office charged with the technical examination of all species or varieties belonging to the same mutation group is in keeping with the general scheme for Community plant variety rights established by that regulation. That general scheme and those principles require that candidate varieties belonging to the same plant variety mutation group of a given species be assessed under the same conditions.

(see paras 48, 52, 53)
Only measures the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position are acts which may be the subject of an action for annulment. In order to ascertain whether a measure in respect of which annulment is sought is open to challenge, it is necessary to look to the substance of the act of which annulment is sought, since the form in which it is cast is, in principle, immaterial.

This is the case for invoices annexed to a decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) requiring an applicant for the registration of a substance to pay the amount of the fee applicable to large undertakings and an administrative charge, the amounts corresponding to those items being indicated in the invoices. As a general rule, annexes are considered to form part of the document to which they are attached and, consequently, the normative force accorded to any annexes is identical to that accorded to the provisions forming the main body of the document. Nothing separates that decision from the invoices, which, taken together, form a single measure consisting of two parts, namely an administrative part (the decision) and an accounting part (the invoices annexed thereto), that single measure expresses the finding of the ECHA that the evidence legally required had not been adduced and demonstrates the intention of the ECHA to impose the relevant consequences by levying financial obligations on the applicant. That single measure produces binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in its legal position since it has the consequence that the applicant cannot benefit from the reduced fee applicable to small and medium sized enterprises and that it must pay the balance of the fee applicable to large undertakings, as well as paying the administrative charge imposed by the legislation in such circumstances.

(see paras 18-21, 25-27)
Agriculture—Common agricultural policy—Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes—Single payment scheme—Calculation of the reference amount—Payment entitlements from the national reserve—Conditions for granting—Farmers having declared fewer hectares than the number to the payment entitlements attributed to them—Possibility to grant without a request from a farmer—Not included

(Council Regulation No 73/2009, Art. 41(3); Commission Regulations No 1120/2009, Recital 7 and Art. 18, and No 1122/2009, Art. 15)

(see paras 37-39)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 May 2018 –

HK v Commission

(Case T‑574/16)

(Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Pension for surviving spouse — Conditions for granting — Condition in respect of duration of marriage — Non-marital partnership — First paragraph of Article 17 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations)

1. Actions brought by officials—Action against a decision rejecting a complaint—Admissibility—Obligation to rule on pleas directed against the decision rejecting the complaint—Pleas devoid of independent content or purely confirmatory decision—None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 15)

2. Officials—Pensions—Pension for surviving spouse—Conditions for granting—Marriage—Minimum duration of marriage—Account taken of cohabitation—Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VIII, Art. 17, second para.) (see paras 21-24, 27, 31, 36)

3. Officials—Equal treatment—Non-marital partnership and marriage—Meaning—Non-comparable situations (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 21(1); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 1d and Annex VIII, Art. 17, first para.; Council Directive 2000/78, Art. 2) (see paras 25, 28-30, 45, 47-51)

4. Actions brought by officials—Application for damages linked to an application for annulment—Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 59)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission decision refusing to grant the applicant entitlement to the survivor’s pension and, in so far as is necessary, of the Commission decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint and, secondly, seeking compensation for the material and non-material allegedly suffered.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders HK to pay the costs;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 June 2018 –

Damm v EUIPO — Schlossbrauerei Au, Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz (EISKELLER)

(Case T‑859/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark EISKELLER — Earlier national word marks KELER and KELER 18 — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — 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—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal—Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before EUIPO bodies—Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see paras 18, 19)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 71)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 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—Figurative mark EISKELLER—Word marks KELER and KELER 18 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 46, 59, 65, 67-70, 72, 73)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2016 (Case R 2428/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Sociedad Anónima Damm and Schlossbrauerei Au, Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judicial proceedings—Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings—Conditions—New plea—Meaning—Arguments closely linked to a plea set out in the application initiating proceedings—Not included

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

(see para. 43)
Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Flat-rate compensation under the scheme laid down in the Staff Regulations — Flat-rate compensation under the scheme laid down in the Staff Regulations — Assessment of the claim for further compensation requiring a medical report — Inadmissibility during the course of the procedure under the scheme laid down in the Staff Regulations — Application, by analogy, of those principles to European Investment Bank staff

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 73; Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 33a)

(see paras 53-57, 59)
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Absence — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see para. 64)