ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
94

It is worth noting that a period of three months to examine the individual situation of nearly 350 persons and bodies is relatively short. Under those circumstances, setting a final date for the submission of applications for review is a legitimate means for the Council to ensure that it receives the observations and evidence submitted by the persons and bodies concerned before the end of the review phase and has sufficient time to examine those elements with the necessary diligence. Admittedly, the time limit of 12 days resulting from the final date set in the present case was a short period, in that it required the applicant to examine the content of the notice and the grounds to be relied on and to draft observations that could be accompanied by evidence. Nonetheless, there are no formal requirements laid down for the submission of an application for review. Furthermore, contrary to the applicant’s contention, there is no requirement to be represented by a lawyer in order to file such an application. Moreover, the lodging of an application for review establishes a dialogue between the Council and the person or body concerned that is not subject to any limitations in terms of time frame or the number of letters exchanged. That means that there is nothing to prevent an application for review containing summary observations from being lodged within the prescribed time limit and then being supplemented, where applicable, by additional observations or evidence as part of a subsequent adversarial process of exchange with the Council. Thus, in itself, the time limit of 12 days provided by the Council in the notice published in the Official Journal on 18 February 2020 (described in paragraph 13 above) for the submission of applications for review does not constitute grounds for considering that the applicant’s right to be heard has been infringed.
97

The applicant further set out and explained the following, in relation to deviations made to the original project plan: ‘5. Deviations from Annex 1 and Annex 2 (if applicable) Originally, the plan was to perform a Phase 1/II clinical trial for safety and efficacy of the P‑TEV product in the ESS country Norway. GMP manufacturing was planned to be done by VeriGraft personnel at a GMP facility at Sahlgrenska University Hospital. The clinical development plans had to be adjusted. Now, a Phase I clinical trial for the safety of the P‑TEV product has been set up in the EU [Member State] Lithuania. Manufacturing under GMP has been set up with a CMO in Lithuania under VeriGraft’s quality management system and supervision. In parallel, a separate Phase II trial to demonstrate efficacy of the P‑TEV product is being set up in Spain using the established pan-European network described in T4.2. The Phase II trial will start once reliable positive safety data becomes available from the Phase I trial. VeriGraft will continue to work with ethical and regulatory documents and approvals for the Phase II trial in Spain while the Phase I trial in Lithuania is progressing. The change of structure for the P‑TEV product clinical development program and change of site for the first trial has led to delays in WP3. In addition, more extensive preclinical testing and a new set of regulatory documents and applications became necessary, before a first-in-human trial can be initiated. … 5.2.1 Unforeseen subcontracting (if applicable) When this project was originally designed and applied for, our preliminary plan was to produce the material in Sweden or Norway using VeriGraft’s own personnel. Therefore, we budgeted only a small amount for GMP-production of P‑TEV as subcontracting. However, as described elsewhere including in this report we have got a change of clinical trial site approved by EASME. Since the best strategy for our project is to produce the clinical material as close to the surgical theatres as possible, we have now an agreement with a Lithuanian CRO (Phase I trial) and with a Spanish CRO (for the Phase II trial). This led us to include these two new subcontracting organisations for GMP-production, the SME Froceth in Lithuania and the non-for-profit regional organisation IATA in Spain in our project plans going forward. Importantly, Froceth and IATA will use their own personnel to carry out the manufacturing. In addition to this, we have also teamed-up with UK-based Clinical Accelerator that helps us coordinate the Lithuanian Phase I study. This CRO has the necessary network and experience from the Lithuanian health care sector to be able to successfully initiate this important Phase I trial. The three organisations mentioned above are all European specialised small entities. They are carefully selected to be optimal partners for the specific tasks they are carrying out. In addition to that, we have meticulously negotiated the price for their services, and to the best of our knowledge and investigations we could not find a quality-wise equal partner that could compete with a lower price.’ …
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 February 2022 –

Vita Zahnfabrik v EUIPO – VIPI Produtos Odontológicos (VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte)

(Case T‑202/21)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte – Earlier EU word mark TRILUX – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22-26, 56)

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 32-34)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word marks VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte and TRILUX (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44, 48, 49, 58, 59)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2021 (Case R 818/2020 4) relating to opposition proceedings between VIPI Indústria, Comércio, Exportação E Importação De Produtos Odontológicos and Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 1 December 2021 –

Jieyang Defa Industry v EUIPO – Mattel (Doll’s Head)

(Case T‑84/21)

(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a doll’s head – Earlier design – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – Degree of freedom of the designer – No different overall impression – Articles 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

1. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 22)

2. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Informed user – Concept (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 26)

3. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Criteria for assessment – Creative licence (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(2) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 32, 38, 39, 64)

4. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Representation of a doll’s head (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 41, 51, 65)

5. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Global assessment of all the elements of the earlier design (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 42)

6. Community designs – Conditions for protection – Visibility of aspects of the product represented by the design (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Recital 12 and Art. 4) (see para. 54)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2020 (Case R 2021/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mattel and Jieyang Defa Industry Co.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
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 – Criteria for assessment – Complementary nature of the goods or services (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 35, 37, 41)
Judicial proceedings – Costs – Litigation concerning intellectual property rights – Recoverable costs – Costs necessarily incurred by the parties for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 190(2))

(see para. 20)
4.

EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Trade mark made up of several elements – Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark – Need to take account of the overall perception of the combination by the relevant public (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1)(b) and 59(1)(a)) (see para. 41)
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade – Sign giving its holder the right to prohibit the use of a more recent trade mark – Burden of proof

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(4) and 76(1); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 19(2)(d))

(see paras 56, 61)
2.

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Signs which consist exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result – Concept – Existence of other shapes allowing the same technical result to be obtained – Not relevant to the ground for refusal (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 31, 32)
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 21, 22, 67)
Environment – Atmospheric pollution – Reduction of fluorinated greenhouse gas emissions – Regulation No 517/2014 – Allocation of quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market – Electronic registry of quotas managed by the Commission – Finding that quota exceeded made on the basis of the data registered in the electronic registry – Undertakings concerned having reported errors in the electronic registry – Application for rectification made in the context of the enforcement of a judgment of the General Court – Applicant not having provided sufficient information as to the circumstances or material nature of the error reported – Dismissal of the application for rectification – Whether permissible

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 517/2014, Art. 25(2))

(see paras 78-89, 92-96)
EU law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Right to effective judicial protection – Restrictive measures directed against the Democratic Republic of the Congo – Freezing of funds of persons undermining the rule of law or contributing to the commission of acts that constitute serious human rights violations – Obligation to disclose individual and specific grounds for the decisions adopted – Obligation to enable the person concerned effectively to put forward his or her point of view regarding the reasons relied on against him or her – Scope

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033, Annex II; Council Regulations No 1183/2005 and 2020/2021, Annex)

(see paras 54-56)
6

On 7 October 2020, the Commission sent the applicant a letter stating inter alia that, as was stated in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the decision in Case SA.44840, under the anti-cumulation rules and paragraph 129 of the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1), investment aid previously received had to be deducted from operating aid with the same objective. According to the Commission, since investment aid granted before 3 May 2011, the date of entry into force of the Law on energy from renewable sources, had not been deducted from operating aid, Paragraph 18 of the amending law remedied that difference in treatment in order to eliminate the overcompensation of producers that had received aid before 2011. In doing so, the Bulgarian support scheme for renewable energy sources was, in its view, consistent with the decision in Case SA.44840, which had declared the Bulgarian scheme compatible with the internal market and paragraph 29 of which had stated that, ‘where the investment aid [had] not [been] initially deducted when setting the level of support, the preferential purchase price [had been] reduced by the amendment of ZEVI of 24 July 2015 to ensure that cumulation rules are respected and the risk of overcompensation is eliminated’. The Commission stated that it had thus approved the amending law, including Paragraph 18 thereof, and that, on the basis of the information provided in the complaint, it did not identify any misapplication of the aid authorised by the decision in Case SA.44840, or any new measures that would constitute State aid. It concluded that it was unable correctly to identify the measure alleged to constitute aid and the circumstances relevant to the assessment of that measure. Lastly, it asked the applicant to send it, if necessary, further evidence in support of its complaint within a period of one month, failing which its complaint would be deemed to have been withdrawn.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Factors to be taken into consideration

Summary

The Community judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but it may determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. It follows that it is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers' fees or any agreement concluded in relation to fees.

Since Community law does not contain any provisions laying down a scale of fees, the Court must consider all the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of Community law, as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the dispute for the lawyer involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Interim measures - Suspension of operation - Conditions - Serious and irreparable harm - Commission decision adopted pursuant to Article 11(3 ) of Regulation No 17, requiring disclosure of a document

( Rules of Procedure, Art . 83(2 ) )

Summary

The Court of First Instance cannot uphold an application by an undertaking for the suspension of the operation of a Commission decision adopted, for the implementation on the competition rules of the Treaty, pursuant to Article 11(3 ) of Regulation No 17 requiring the undertaking to produce a document, on the ground that, according to the applicant, there is a risk that the governments of the Member States, being informed thereof by the competent authorities referred to in Articles 10 and 20 of that regulation, might acquire knowledge of matters covered by business secrecy and might use such information in a manner detrimental to it . By so doing, the Court would be anticipating a breach by the said competent authorities of the obligations imposed on them by the Article 20 of that provision concerning professional secrecy .
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Officials - Actions - Prior complaint through administrative channels - Time-limits - Matter of public policy - Act adversely affecting an official - Confirmatory measure - Distinction between a complaint and a request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Rejection of the complaint - Action out of time - Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Suspension of operation of a decision in a competition case ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Balancing of all the interests involved

(EEC Treaty, Arts 85 and 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

Refusal to suspend operation of a Commission decision prohibiting an association of undertakings from applying a complex set of private-law rules and regulations organizing competition between contractors tendering for building and construction work in a Member State might in practice render nugatory a final decision of the Court of First Instance annulling the contested decision. This would be the case if immediate implementation of that decision were in the meantime to change fundamentally the procedural framework in which competition in the relevant market operated, thereby compromising irreversibly any chance which the applicant might have of re-applying the contested rules and regulations. In such a situation, the weighing of the public interest in the proper administration of justice against the interests of the parties, including the Commission' s interests in ending the infringement of the Treaty competition rules which it considers it has found, requires an interim solution. This consists in ordering a partial suspension ° but only in so far as is strictly necessary so as to limit the damage the applicant could suffer through immediate implementation of the decision ° limited to those elements of the rules and regulations applied by the applicant whose implementation clearly do not restrict competition.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Intervention ° Persons having an interest ° Case concerning the validity of a decision applying the competition rules ° Action for the annulment of a decision exempting a system of selective distribution for de luxe cosmetics ° Undertaking in whose favour the exemption is granted

(EEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 115)
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Actions ° Prior complaint through official channels ° Time-limits ° Time-barred ° Reopening of time-limits ° Conditions ° New fact ° Condition not satisfied

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Action devoid of purpose ° No need to give a decision
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Applications for interim measures ° Conditions of admissibility ° Admissibility of the main application ° Irrelevant ° Limits

(EEC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation ° Total or partial suspension of operation, at the request of employees' representative bodies, of a decision authorizing, subject to certain conditions, a concentration between undertakings ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Weighing of all the interests involved ° Risk of the creation, unnecessarily, of an irreversible situation justifying action by the Court in response to an application for interim measures

(EEC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 4064/89)

3. Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation ° Total or partial suspension of operation of a decision authorizing, subject to certain conditions, a concentration between undertakings ° Insufficient information available to the Court ° Party called on to supply information ° Suspension granted until the judge hearing the application for interim measures has given a decision, in the light of the information supplied to him, regarding compliance with the conditions laid down in the decision

(EEC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure ° Costs ° Withdrawal from proceedings not justified by conduct of the other party

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(5))

2. Procedure ° Costs ° Intervention ° Case not proceeding to judgment

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(6))