ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 2020 –

Impera v EUIPO – Euro Games Technology (Flaming Forties)

(Case T‑875/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark Flaming Forties – Earlier national figurative mark 40 FLAMING FRUITS – 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 21, 75)

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. 23)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 32)

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 marks Flaming Forties and 40 FLAMING FRUITS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 44, 55-60, 66, 71, 76, 82, 83)

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 45, 46)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 (Case R 2321/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Euro Games Technology and Impera.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2021 –

Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO – Bacardi (BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA)

(Case T‑831/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA – Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Relevant public – Similarity of the goods and services – Similarity of the signs – Global assessment of the 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 29, 30, 60-63, 68, 69, 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 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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 33)

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 BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA and word and figurative marks 42 BELOW (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 38, 64, 95, 105)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40, 44-46, 89)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 2533/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bacardi & Co. and Palírna U Zeléného stromu.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2020 –

3V Sigma v ECHA

(Case T‑176/19)

(REACH – Substance evaluation – UVASORB HEB – Decision of the ECHA requesting further information – Article 46(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Request seeking to identify potential transformation or degradation products of the substance – Proportionality – Need for the additional study requested – Relevant conditions and realistic conditions – Study temperature – Manifest error of assessment)

1. Approximation of laws – Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals – REACH Regulation – Assessment procedure – Decision of the European Chemicals Agency requesting further information in the context of a substance evaluation – Need for the additional study requested – Burden of proof on the ECHA – Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Art. 46(1) and Annex XIII) (see paras 44, 46, 53, 57)

2. Approximation of laws – Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals – REACH Regulation – Assessment procedure – Decision of the European Chemical Agency requesting further information in the context of a substance evaluation – Conditions imposed for the additional study – Assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Annex XIII) (see paras 70-73, 86)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Decision A-004-2017 of the ECHA Board of Appeal of 15 January 2019 in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the ECHA of 20 December 2016 requiring that further information be provided about the substance UVASORB HEB and in so far as the deadline for providing that information was set at 22 October 2020.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders 3V Sigma SpA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), including those incurred in connection with the proceedings for interim relief;
Officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Remuneration – Annual adjustment of the basic salary scale – Administration's discretion – Adoption of a decision on the matter – Consequences – Limitation of its own discretion

(Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 20, first para. and Annex I; Rules of Procedure of the European Investment Bank, Art. 31)

(see paras 39-42, 52)
EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Similarity of the marks concerned – Degree of similarity required

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(1)(b) and (5) and 52(1)(a))

(see para. 87)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 March 2021 –

Lego v EUIPO – Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set

(Case T‑515/19)

(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered community design representing a building block from a toy building set – Ground for invalidity – Non-compliance with requirements for protection – Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function – Features of appearance of a product to be necessarily reproduced in their exact form and dimensions in order to permit the interconnection with other products – Designs whose purpose is to allow multiple assembly or connection of mutually interchangeable products within a modular system – Article 8(1) to (3) of Regulation No 6/2002)

1. Community designs – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Re-evaluation of the facts in the light of evidence produced for the first time before it – Precluded (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61) (see para. 19)

2. Judicial proceedings – Production of evidence – Time limit – Evidence lodged out of time – Conditions – EUIPO’s decision-making practice after the proceedings – Whether permissible (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 85) (see para. 21)

3. Community designs – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against a decision by a department of OHIM – Examination by the Board of Appeal – Scope (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 8(3) and 60(1)) (see paras 48, 49)

4. Community designs – Conditions for protection – Designs dictated by their technical function – Features of appearance of a product which are dictated solely by its technical function – Criteria for assessment – Existence of alternative designs – Irrelevant (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Recital 10 and Art. 8(1) and (2)) (see paras 59-61, 93-96, 98)

5. Community designs – Surrender and invalidity – Application for a declaration of invalidity based on the existence of an earlier design – Burden of proof (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 4 to 9 and 25(1)(b)) (see para. 99)

6. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings before the Court – Not permissible (Art. 296 TFEU) (see para. 112)

7. Community designs – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61(3)) (see para. 119)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 April 2019 (Case R 31/2018-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Delta Sport Handelskontor and Lego.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 April 2019 (Case R 31/2018-3);

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
2.

European Parliament – Regulation governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament – Single statute for Members of the European Parliament – Decision of the Directorate-General for Finances of the European Parliament concerning the change in the amount of the pensions of former Members of the European Parliament – Change carried out in application of the identical pension rule – No margin of discretion as to the method of calculating those pensions – Pension rights acquired before the entry into force of the Statute – No guarantee as to the immutability of the amount of pensions (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, Arts 74 and 75 and Recital 7; Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, Annex III, Art. 2(1); European Parliament Decision 2005/684, Art. 28) (see paras 49, 50, 52, 54-62, 65-67)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 30 June 2021 –

Welter’s v EUIPO (Shape of a handgrip with a brush)

(Case T‑624/19)

(EU trade mark – Application for three-dimensional EU trade mark – Shape of a handgrip with a brush – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – 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 – Alteration of a decision of the Office – Assessment in the light of the powers conferred on the Board of Appeal (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 66(1), 71(1), 72(3)) (see paras 10-12)

2. Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d)) (see para. 16)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself – Distinctive character – Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23-27, 33)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself – Shape of a handgrip with a brush (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 43, 48-51)

5. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – 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. 52)

6. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States – Effect (see para. 57)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2019 (Case R 2428/2018-5) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a handgrip with a brush as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Imposition of anti-dumping duties – Combination with safeguard tariff measures – Alteration of the anti-dumping duties according to whether the tariff quotas provided for in the context of safeguard measures are exhausted – No breach of the principle of equal treatment

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 21; European Parliament and Council Regulations Nos 2015/477 and 2016/1036, Art. 9(5); Commission Regulation 2019/1382)

(see paras 46-54)
1.

Action for annulment – Time limits – Point from which time starts to run – Date of publication or notification – Day on which a measure came to the knowledge of the applicant – Subsidiary matter – Measures required, pursuant to a regulatory provision, to be published in the Official Journal – Decision by the Commission to end a formal investigation procedure concerning State aid – Action brought by a party that is not the addressee of the decision – Time limit calculated from the date of publication (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Council Regulation 2015/1589, Arts 9 and 32(3)) (see paras 35-38, 40)
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 1 December 2021 –

HC v Commission

(Case T‑804/19)

(Civil service – Recruitment – Notice of competition – Open competition EPSO/AD/363/18 – Decision not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition – Obligation to state reasons – Manifest error of assessment – Plea of illegality – Equal treatment – Proportionality – Right to be heard – Principle of sound administration – Language rules for the competition – Discrimination based on language – Liability)

1. Officials – Competitions – Conditions for admission – Equal treatment of candidates – Limits – Candidate claiming the benefit of an incorrect application of the competition notice to other candidates – Not permissible (see paras 118-120)

2. Officials – Competitions – Competition based on qualifications and tests – Assessment of the candidates’ merits – Re-examination of applications – Purpose – Breach of the principle of good administration owing to the selection board itself carrying out the review – None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Art. 7(2)(b)) (see paras 146-148)

3. Actions brought by officials – Interest in bringing proceedings – Candidate eliminated from a competition requesting the annulment of the list of candidates invited to the next phase – Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see paras 175-178)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU for the annulment of, first, the notice of competition EPSO/AD/363/18 of 11 October 2018 organised for the purpose of drawing up two reserve lists from which the Commission is to recruit administrators (at grade AD 7) in the fields of customs and taxation, secondly, the decision of the selection board for that competition not to include the applicant’s name on the list of individuals invited to the assessment centre, thirdly, the decision of that selection board rejecting the applicant’s request for a review, fourthly, the Commission’s decision of 20 August 2019 dismissing the applicant’s claim under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, fifthly, the list of candidates invited to the next stage of the competition, and for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result thereof.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits – Application to documents on the administrative file of an investigation of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) – General presumption that disclosure of the said documents will undermine protection of the interests involved in such an investigation

(European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001 and No 883/2013)

(see paras 55-57)
8

In particular, Article 35 of Regulation 2018/1971, headed ‘Cooperation with Union bodies, third countries and international organisations’, is worded as follows: ‘1. In so far as necessary in order to achieve the objectives set out in this Regulation and carry out its tasks, and without prejudice to the competences of the Member States and the institutions of the Union, BEREC and the BEREC Office may cooperate with competent Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups, with competent authorities of third countries and with international organisations. To that end, BEREC and the BEREC Office may, subject to prior approval by the Commission, establish working arrangements. Those arrangements shall not create legal obligations. 2. The Board of Regulators, the working groups and the Management Board shall be open to the participation of regulatory authorities of third countries with primary responsibility in the field of electronic communications, where those third countries have entered into agreements with the Union to that effect. Under the relevant provisions of those agreements, working arrangements shall be developed specifying, in particular, the nature, extent and manner in which the regulatory authorities of the third countries concerned will participate without the right to vote in the work of BEREC and of the BEREC Office, including provisions relating to participation in the initiatives carried out by BEREC, financial contributions and staff to the BEREC Office. As regards staff matters, those arrangements shall, in any event, comply with the Staff Regulations. 3. As part of the annual work programme referred to in Article 21, the Board of Regulators shall adopt BEREC’s strategy for relations with competent Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups, with competent authorities of third countries and with international organisations concerning matters for which BEREC is competent. The Commission, BEREC and the BEREC Office shall conclude an appropriate working arrangement for the purpose of ensuring that BEREC and the BEREC Office operate within their mandate and the existing institutional framework.’
26

By letter of 16 May 2018 to the Head of Unit, the Director of ECDC accepted his resignation. In that letter, first, the Director stated that the investigator had concluded that, in his view, the applicant’s first request for assistance and a similar request made by another ECDC staff member could be upheld. Secondly, the Director recalled the comments made by the Head of Unit. Thus, according to him, the principle of presumption of innocence had not been respected during the investigation, the investigation report was marred by several factual errors, some of the persons involved in the investigation might have acted in bad faith and his intention had never been to harm anyone but to act in the interest of ECDC. Thirdly, the Director indicated that she had found some factual errors in the investigation report and that the Head of Unit was entitled to take action on some performance issues concerning several members of his unit. However, the Director considered, after reading the investigation report and the serious allegations made against him, including in testimonies, that the management style of the Head of Unit had caused unnecessary stress and anxiety to the staff. In those circumstances, the Director indicated that the relationship of trust between ECDC and the Head of Unit could no longer be established and that she was considering terminating his contract in accordance with Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS. However, having noted that the Head of Unit had in the meantime submitted his resignation, the Director accepted it in the following terms: ‘However, you have now submitted your resignation, which in practice means that your last day in service will be before a termination would take effect, thus I see that it is in the interest of the service to approve your resignation dated 15 May. Your notice period is 10 months, which means that your last day in service will be 15 March 2019. As discussed and agreed in our meeting, you will work from home during your notice period on tasks assigned by me. During your notice period, you should act in keeping with your duty of loyalty towards ECDC pursuant to Article 11 of the CEOS.’