ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 2020 –

Alkemie Group v EUIPO – Mann & Schröder (ALKEMIE)

(Case T‑860/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark ALKEMIE – Earlier EU word mark Alkmene – 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 17, 18, 63)

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. 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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 30, 33)

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 ALKEMIE and word mark Alkmene (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 67, 71-75, 77)

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 – Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities – Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 69)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 (Case R 2231/2018-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Mann & Schröder and Alkemie Group.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 September 2019 (Case R 2231/2018-2) to the extent that it dismissed the action of Alkemie Group sp. z o.o in respect of ‘dietary aids’ in Class 5;

2. Dismisses the action for the remainder;
EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU

(Art. 296, second para. TFEU; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence)

(see paras 21, 22, 24)
Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 20 January 2021 –

12seasons v EUIPO – Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny (BE EDGY BERLIN)

(Case T‑329/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark BE EDGY BERLIN – Earlier national word mark EDJI – 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 24, 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 of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 26, 36)

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 27, 28)

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 BE EDGY BERLIN and word mark EDJI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 37, 47, 54, 56, 66, 72)

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 – Similarity of the marks concerned – Whether conceptual differences may neutralise visual or aural similarities – Conditions (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 63)

6. EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Legality – Examination by the EU judicature – Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 70)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 (Case R 1522/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny and 12seasons.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2021 –

EJ v EIB

(Case T‑585/19)

(Civil service – EIB staff – Remuneration – Travel costs – Double dependent child allowance – Child with serious illness – Capping of the backdated reimbursement of those costs and of that double allowance – Reasonable period – Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff – Action for annulment and for damages)

1. Actions brought by officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Action against a decision ending a conciliation procedure – Effect – Disputed measure referred to the Court – Exception – Decision not confirmatory in character – Account taken of the reasoning therein (Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 41) (see paras 22-25)

2. Actions brought by officials – Request under Article 90 (1) of the Staff Regulations – Claim for retroactive payment of allowances – Duty to act within a reasonable time – Starting point of the limitation period (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(1); Annex VII, Arts 2 and 3) (see paras 33-37, 49-59)

3. Officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Remuneration – Family allowances – Double dependent child allowance – Conditions for granting – Need for an application in the correct form lodged by the person concerned – Recognition by the administration of the existence of a serious illness in the child – Obligation to examine of its own motion the individual case for the purpose of granting the allowance – None (see paras 43-46)

4. Officials – Remuneration – Family allowances – Dependent child allowance – Administration's duty to have regard for the interests of officials – Principle of sound administration – Scope – Taking into account of official’s interests – Limits (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 2) (see paras 76, 77, 79)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and on Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 16 February 2018 capping the backdated reimbursement of the recurring travel costs incurred by the applicant owing to her child’s serious illness at 18 months and of the decision of 23 March 2018 capping the backdated award of the double dependent child allowance at five years and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 April 2021 –

Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO – Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

(Case T‑555/19)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark GRILLOUMI – Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Detriment to reputation – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) 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 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 paras 32-34)

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 – Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 44)

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 mark GRILLOUMI and collective word mark HALLOUMI (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 43, 45, 46, 50-52)

4. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Review of the legal classification given to the facts of the dispute – Review of the assessment by the Board of Appeal of the likelihood of confusion – Findings not challenged as regards the factors that are essential to the analysis of that likelihood of confusion – Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 65(2) and 76) (see paras 47-49)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 May 2019 (Case R 1355/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Fontana Food.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 May 2019 (Case R 1355/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Fontana Food AB;

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi;
Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela – Regulation reviewing the list of persons, groups or entities concerned without repealing the earlier regulation – Action brought by a person who was not mentioned in that regulation – Admissibility

(Art. 263 TFEU; Council Decision 2018/1656; Council Regulations No 2017/2063 and No 2018/1653)

(see paras 35-37)
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Pleas in law not set out in the application – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see para. 63)
Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Regulation No 1107/2009 – Renewal of approval – Implementation of the renewal procedure – Commission’s refusal to examine additional data submitted after the end of the peer review – No infringement of the rights of the defence

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1107/2009, Recital 14; Commission Regulation No 1141/2010, Art. 16(4))

(see paras 98-101)
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 – Perception of the sign by the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 28-30)
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 December 2021 –

HB v Commission

(Case T‑796/19)

(Public service contracts – Provision of technical assistance services to the Ukrainian authorities – Decision to reduce the amount of the contract and to recover the amounts already paid – Action for annulment and for damages – Act forming part of a purely contractual framework from which it is inseparable – No arbitration clause – Inadmissibility – No heads of damage that are separable from the contract)

1. Actions for annulment – Admissibility criteria – Considered of the Court’s own motion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 48)

2. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Application for the annulment of a decision to reduce the amounts due under a contract and to recover the amounts unduly paid – Contract containing a jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on the national court – Lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Inadmissibility (Arts 263, 272 and 274 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 102 and 103; Commission Regulation No 2519/97, Art. 22) (see paras 49-53, 66, 67)

3. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Assessment of those effects by reference to the substance of the measure (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 60)

4. Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Direct applicability (Art. 288, second para., TFEU) (see para. 72)

5. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Cumulative conditions (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 94)

6. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Infringement of a contractual provision – Not included (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 95)

Re:

(i) Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 7318 final of 15 October 2019 to reduce the amounts due under contract TACIS/2006/101-510 and to recover the amounts unduly paid and (ii) application under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU seeking, first, reimbursement of any amounts recovered by the Commission on the basis of that decision, together with late-payment interest, and second, symbolic compensation for the non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible, in so far as it seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 7318 final of 15 October 2019 to reduce the amounts due under contract TACIS/2006/101-510 and to recover the amounts unduly paid;

2. Dismisses the action as unfounded, in so far as it seeks to establish non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union;
Concentrations between undertakings – Examination by the Commission – Definition of the relevant market – Criteria – Substitutability between products – Information needed for an assessment

(Council Regulation No 139/2004; Commission Regulation No 802/2004, Annex I; Commission Notice 97/C 372/03, paragraphs 13 to 17, 20, 21, 23 to 25, 34, 38)

(see paras 36-49, 74-79, 90, 119, 120, 127-131, 141)
63

In that regard, it is apparent from the contested decision that the purpose of the joint committee is to protect the geographical indications of the goods. Therefore, when examining the exception at issue, the Commission could legitimately consider that, in the event that the documents requested, which were brought to the attention of that committee by the Mexican authorities and which are directly connected to the work of that committee and to cooperation in the protection of geographical indications, were to be disclosed despite the opposition expressed on two occasions by those authorities, the latter could regard such an act as a breach of trust. The Commission could also have validly considered that, as a consequence, cooperation in the protection of geographical indications with that third country could be threatened, which could result in the Mexican authorities refusing to pass on certain information, in particular to the joint committee, in the future. As was stated in paragraph 27 above, the documents requested list cases of alleged fraud, mention entities which allegedly use or sell ‘pseudo-Tequila’ in the European Union and contain information that some of those possible fraudulent uses are already the subject of legal proceedings in which the European Union and the Mexican authorities are cooperating closely. Thus, the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment in considering that disclosure of the documents requested could have a negative impact on the workings of the joint committee, whose objective is to protect the geographical indications of the goods, and on all future cooperation concerning geographical indications and their protection in the European Union.
88

It is true that, under Article 266 TFEU, the EESC is required to implement the present judgment by basing the procedure for regrading of members of the temporary staff on evaluation material that is clear, transparent and non-discriminatory. Nonetheless, the illegality arising from the lack of such material prior to the bringing of this action cannot easily be rectified after the event. It is impossible to predict the nature of the evaluation material which will be adopted by the EESC, and difficult to determine how the applicant’s performance will be assessed in the light of that material. Thus, whatever system the EESC may adopt, doubt will remain as to the applicant’s prospects of retroactive regrading and, potentially, as to how she might have performed if the evaluation material to be used for the purposes of regrading had been defined from the outset. That doubt constitutes damage arising directly from the unlawful conduct of the EESC, and the measures that the EESC will have to take by way of implementation of the judgment cannot compensate the applicant for the uncertainty she feels as to her career development (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 12 May 2011, AQ v Commission, F‑66/10, EU:F:2011:56, paragraph 110).
2

Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63) contains a Chapter III, entitled ‘Powers of the ECB’. Section 1 of that chapter, entitled ‘Investigatory powers’, includes Article 12, entitled ‘On-site inspections’, which is worded as follows: ‘1. In order to carry out the tasks conferred on it by this Regulation, and subject to other conditions set out in relevant Union law, the ECB may in accordance with Article 13 and subject to prior notification to the national competent authority concerned conduct all necessary on-site inspections at the business premises of the legal persons referred to in Article 10(1) and any other undertaking included in supervision on a consolidated basis where the ECB is the consolidating supervisor in accordance with point (g) of Article 4(1). Where the proper conduct and efficiency of the inspection so require, the ECB may carry out the on-site inspection without prior announcement to those legal persons. 2. The officials of and other persons authorised by the ECB to conduct an on-site inspection may enter any business premises and land of the legal persons subject to an investigation decision adopted by the ECB and shall have all the powers stipulated in Article 11(1). 3. The legal persons referred to in Article 10(1) shall be subject to on-site inspections on the basis of a decision of the ECB. 4. Officials and other accompanying persons authorised or appointed by the national competent authority of the Member State where the inspection is to be conducted shall, under the supervision and coordination of the ECB, actively assist the officials of and other persons authorised by the ECB. To that end, they shall enjoy the powers set out in paragraph 2. Officials of the national competent authority of the participating Member State concerned shall also have the right to participate in the on-site inspections. 5. Where the officials of and other accompanying persons authorised or appointed by the ECB find that a person opposes an inspection ordered pursuant to this Article, the national competent authority of the participating Member State concerned shall afford them the necessary assistance in accordance with national law. To the extent necessary for the inspection, this assistance shall include the sealing of any business premises and books or records. Where that power is not available to the national competent authority concerned, it shall use its powers to request the necessary assistance of other national authorities.’
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2020 –

Almea v EUIPO – Sanacorp Pharmahandel (Almea)

(Case T‑190/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Almea – Earlier national word mark MEA – 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 19, 20, 53)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity of the marks concerned – Criteria for assessment – Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25, 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 – Figurative mark Almea and word mark MEA (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22-24, 32-34, 38, 41, 45-47, 49, 50, 55, 56)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 48)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2020 (Case R 246/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Sanacorp Pharmahandel and Almea.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;