ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
37

It must be noted, in this regard, that such an interpretation cannot be accepted since the EU legislature has expressly laid down, in Article 110 of the Staff Regulations, a mandatory provision which distinguishes clearly between the obligation on the part of the appointing authority or authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment to consult the staff committee of the institution concerned and the obligation on the part of the appointing authority or authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment to seek the opinion of a body which brings together representatives of the administrations and staff of all institutions, that is to say, the Staff Regulations committee. Article 110 of the Staff Regulations confers competence on the Staff Regulations committee to issue opinions on all GIPs, which necessarily implies that such an opinion is such as to influence the decision of the appointing authority or the authority empowered to conclude contracts. To presume that the decisions of 17 December 2013 and of 3 December 2014 would necessarily have been the same had they been made further to the opinion of the Staff Regulations committee has the effect of rendering meaningless the obligation to seek the opinion of that committee, which must be able to set out its own views on the criteria guiding the exercise by the administration of its broad discretionary power to revise the amount of the ALC. The opinion of the Staff Regulations committee is therefore necessary in order to ensure that the implementing measures of the Staff Regulations, taken by the different institutions, are consistent and respect the principle of the integrity of the Staff Regulations.
90

Finally, it is also appropriate to observe that the prosecution of economic crimes, such as the misappropriation of public funds, is an important means of combating corruption, and that the fight against corruption constitutes, in the context of the external action of the European Union, a principle falling within the concept of the rule of law. It must further be observed that the offence which the applicant is alleged to have committed has a wider context, in that a significant part of the former Ukrainian leadership is suspected of having committed serious crimes in the management of public resources, thereby seriously threatening the legal and institutional foundations of the country and undermining, inter alia, the principles of legality, prohibition on arbitrary exercise of power by the executive, effective judicial review and equality before the law. It follows that, taken as a whole and taking into consideration the role occupied by the applicant within the former Ukrainian leadership and his position as head of the National Bank of Ukraine at the time of the offence of which he is suspected, the restrictive measures at issue contribute, in an effective manner, to facilitating the prosecution of crimes of misappropriation of public funds that were to the detriment of the Ukrainian institutions and ensure that the Ukrainian authorities can more easily secure restitution of the profits of such misappropriation. That facilitates, in the event that the prosecutions are successful, the punishment, through the courts of law, of alleged acts of corruption committed by members of the former regime, and thereby contributes to the support of the rule of law in that country (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 July 2017, Arbuzov v Council, T‑221/15, not published, EU:T:2017:478, paragraph 128 and the case-law cited).
3

Article 1(24) of Regulation No 1023/2013 provided for the addition, in Chapter 2 of Title III of the Staff Regulations, of Section 7, entitled ‘Leave in the interests of the service’, containing a single provision: Article 42c. Under that provision: ‘At the earliest 5 years before the official’s pensionable age, an official with at least 10 years of service may be placed by decision of the appointing authority on leave in the interests of the service for organisational needs linked to the acquisition of new competences within the institutions. The total number of officials placed on leave in the interests of the service each year shall not be higher than 5% of the officials in all institutions who retired the previous year. The total number thus calculated shall be allocated to each institution according to their respective numbers of officials at 31 December of the preceding year. The result of such allocation shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number in each institution. Such leave shall not constitute a disciplinary measure. The duration of the leave shall correspond in principle to the period until the official reaches pensionable age. However, in exceptional situations, the appointing authority may decide to put an end to the leave and reinstate the official. When the official placed on leave in the interests of the service reaches pensionable age, he shall automatically be retired. Leave in the interests of the service shall be governed by the following rules: (a) another official may be appointed to the post occupied by the official; (b) an official on leave in the interests of the service shall not be entitled to advancement to a higher step or promotion in grade. An official thus placed on leave shall receive an allowance calculated in accordance with Annex IV. At the official’s request, the allowance shall be subject to contributions to the pension scheme, calculated on the basis of that allowance. In such a case, the period of service as an official on leave in the interests of the service shall be taken into account for the purpose of calculating years of pensionable service within the meaning of Article 2 of Annex VIII. The allowance shall not be subject to a correction coefficient.’
109

In the third place, it must be borne in mind that, since measures such as the contested measures have a considerable impact on the rights and freedoms of the persons concerned, the Council is required to observe the rights of defence of those persons by notifying them of the reasons for their inclusion on the list in question at the same time as, or immediately after, the decision is adopted, and by allowing them to make representations at the latest before the adoption of the second decision concerning them and thus to rebut, where appropriate, the presumption in question, by producing such information relating to their personal circumstances as will tell in favour of the decision’s being adopted or not, or of its having this content or that (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 December 2011, France v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, C‑27/09 P, EU:C:2011:853, paragraphs 61 to 67). In that regard, it should be observed that it is clear from the file that, by letter of 19 December 2016, the Council sent to the applicant the evidence and the listing proposal submitted by a Member State on the basis of which his name was included on the lists annexed to the contested measures. The Council had, therefore, afforded the applicant the opportunity to produce evidence that, notwithstanding the existence of serious indicia that he should be included in the category of persons covered by the relevant listing criterion, he was not in fact linked to the Syrian regime. Consequently, it must be held that the applicant’s rights of defence were respected.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2021 –

Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO – M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)

(Case T‑328/17 RENV)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark BBQLOUMI – Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI – Relative ground for refusal – 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 – 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 45, 47, 51, 71)

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 collective trade 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 8(1)(b) and 66(1)) (see para. 46)

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 – Assessment of the distinctive character of an element of which a trade mark is composed (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 52)

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 BBQLOUMI – Collective word mark HALLOUMI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 53, 55, 65, 69, 75)

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 – Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark – Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 64-66)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2017 (Case R 497/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and M. J. Dairies.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 November 2018 –

AB Mauri Italy v EUIPO — Lesaffre (FERMIN)

(Case T‑78/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the EU word mark FERMIN — Earlier international and Benelux word marks FERMIPAN — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 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 No 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 25)

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 between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 26)

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 FERMIN and FERMIPAN (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 36-39, 45, 46)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Joined Cases R 2027/2016-4 and R 2254/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between AB Mauri Italy and Lesaffre et Cie.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 (Joined Cases R 2027/2016-4 and R 2254/2016–4) in so far as it rejected, for lack of similarity with ‘yeast’ in Class 30, the opposition to registration of the word mark FERMIN in respect of some of the goods in the same class, namely ‘mixes for bakery products; bakery mixtures (ready-to-use bread mixes); yeast- based preparations for pastries and pizza dough’;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
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 paras 32, 39)
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — General reference to other documents not annexed to the application — Inadmissibility

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

(see para. 25)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2019 –

Pharmadom v EUIPO — Objectif Pharma (WS wellpharma shop)

(Case T‑403/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark WS wellpharma shop — Earlier national word mark WELL AND WELL — Relative ground for refusal — 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 para. 18)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States — Effect (see para. 42)

4. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 43)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 47)

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 — Weighing elements of similarity or difference between the signs — Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 64)

7. 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 WS wellpharma shop and word mark WELL AND WELL (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 66-69)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2018 (Case R 1448/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Pharmadom and Objectif Pharma.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 May 2019 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)

(Case T‑466/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction issued to the Office — Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(6)) (see para. 12)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16-19)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Marks consisting of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Marks consisting of advertising slogans — Slogan conveying an objective message (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — 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, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 32)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Figurative mark EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3)) (see paras 44, 56, 57, 67, 68)

7. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Exception — Distinctive character acquired through use — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b) and (3)) (see paras 50-54)

Re

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 (Case R 1359/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2019 –

Marry Me Group v EUIPO (MARRY ME)

(Case T‑332/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MARRY ME — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(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. 14)

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 — Concept (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 15, 16, 31)

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 17, 20, 32)

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 sign MARRY ME (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 24-27, 29, 34)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Decisions of national authorities not binding EU bodies (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 33)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 (Case R 806/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MARRY ME as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Examination of the application — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Figurative mark mobile

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1), 2nd para., (a) and 64(2) and (3))

(see paras 29, 34, 36, 37, 55)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2019 –

Geske v EUIPO (SATISFYERMEN)

(Case T‑427/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark SATISFYERMEN — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Duty to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94 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. 17)

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 — Concept (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19-23, 39)

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 — Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 24)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods — Marque Figurative mark SATISFYERMEN (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 26, 35, 37, 38)

5. Action for annulment — Pleas in law — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 49)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 (Case R 2603/2017-1), relating to the application for registration of the figurative mark SATISFYERMEN as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;