Review of the EU legislation for 10/07/2025

Review of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1269 – Electronic System for Agricultural Non-customs Formalities (ELAN)

This regulation establishes the framework for ELAN, an electronic system designed to manage trade and market in agricultural products by handling non-customs formalities. ELAN will manage documents such as import and export licenses and certificates of authenticity. The key provisions address access rights to ELAN, ensuring data protection by limiting access to relevant authorities, and setting a 10-year retention period for documents and related data.

Review of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1268 – Amendments to Delegated Regulations (EU) 2016/1237 and (EU) 2020/760

This regulation amends existing regulations to accommodate ELAN, aiming to optimize trade in agricultural products. All required documents will be made available electronically to customs authorities via the EU Single Window Environment for Customs. This involves updating rules for import/export licenses and tariff rate quotas. Practical implications include the shift to electronic licenses via ELAN, transitional arrangements for paper and electronic documents, and updated procedures for customs declarations and license transfers.

Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1322 – Sample Survey on ICT Usage

This regulation specifies the technical details for a sample survey on the use of information and communication technologies (ICT). It standardizes data collection and transmission for the reference year 2026. Key elements include a standardized data set, technical formats for data transmission, requirements for quality reports, specific reference and fieldwork periods, and common standards for data editing, imputation, and estimation. The Annex provides an extensive list of variables to be collected, from basic demographics to detailed aspects of ICT usage, e-commerce activities, and digital skills.

Review of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1347 – Restrictive Measures Against South Sudan

This regulation updates identifying information and reasons for sanctions against an individual obstructing the peace process in South Sudan. It amends Annex II of Regulation (EU) 2015/735, providing updated details regarding Michael Makuei Lueth, including a new statement of reasons for maintaining restrictive measures against him.

Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1271 – ELAN and Tariff Rate Quotas

This regulation amends regulations to integrate ELAN into the import/export of agricultural products. It streamlines trade by digitizing documents and making them accessible through the EU Single Window. It also addresses tariff quota issues, such as those for rice imports from Bangladesh. Key provisions include phased implementation of ELAN, new data models, requirements for electronic signatures, and specific instructions for completing licenses and providing documentation for certain agricultural products.

Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1344 – Tariff Rate Quotas and Measures Against Belarus and Russia

This regulation modifies regulations on tariff rate quotas for agricultural goods to exclude products originating in or exported from Belarus and Russia, reflecting trade restrictions. Importers must ensure licenses for specified quotas include a statement excluding products from these countries. Traders need to check the origin of goods for compliance, with the regulation linked to Regulation (EU) 2025/1227.

Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1272 – Electronic System for Agricultural Non-customs Formalities (ELAN) Establishment

This regulation establishes ELAN, which aims to streamline and secure document exchange and storage for agricultural trade with third countries. It defines the system’s scope, document types, technical requirements, and includes a transitional period with testing in July 2025 and full operation by October 2028. Key provisions involve the transitional period and contingency measures, detailing timelines for voluntary and mandatory use, plus procedures for system unavailability, ensuring business continuity.

Review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1356 – African Swine Fever Control Measures

This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594, updating geographical areas listed in Annexes I and II concerning African swine fever (ASF). The amendment designates specific zones within certain EU member states as restricted or infected, to contain the spread of the disease through targeted control measures.

Review of Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1350 – Fishing Opportunities

This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2025/202, setting fishing opportunities for 2025 and 2026. The changes incorporate new scientific advice, consultations with third countries, and decisions from regional fisheries management organizations, adjusting total allowable catches (TACs) and technical measures for fish stocks.

Review of Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1331 – IFRS Accounting Standards

This regulation amends Regulation (EU) 2023/1803 to incorporate “Annual Improvements to IFRS Accounting Standards – Volume 11” issued by the International Accounting Standards Board. These improvements streamline and clarify existing standards, addressing inconsistencies and wording clarifications in IFRS 1, IFRS 7, IFRS 9, IFRS 10, and IAS 7.

Review of General Court Judgment T-306/24 – sprd.net AG v EUIPO (Trademark: I <3)

The General Court upheld EUIPO’s decision to reject the trademark application, finding that the mark lacks distinctiveness and would be perceived by the relevant public as an indication of origin. The court considered that the sign is a common laudatory message (“I love”) and that its specific placement does not automatically confer distinctiveness.

Review of General Court Judgment on Bad Faith in Trademark Registration

This judgment addresses the action brought by Guangzhou Wanglaoji Grand Health Co. Ltd against EUIPO’s decision. The action was brought in the case concerning the validity of several EU trade marks, and the applicant argued that the Intervener had acted in bad faith when filing the applications for registration. The General Court ultimately dismisses the action, upholding the validity of the contested trade marks.

Review of General Court Judgment T-305/24 – sprd.net AG v EUIPO (Trademark: Interior Clothing Label I <3)

The General Court addresses whether a position mark consisting of a capital “I” and a red heart on an interior clothing label is distinctive enough to be registered as a European Union trademark. The Court upheld EUIPO’s decision to reject the trademark application, finding that the mark lacks distinctiveness and would not be perceived by the relevant public as an indication of origin.

Review of General Court Judgment T-144/24 – Bouwbenodigdheden Hoogeveen BV v EUIPO (Bienenbeisser Trademark)

The General Court’s key finding centered on the annulment of EUIPO’s decision to revoke the “BIENENBEISSER” trademark. The Court decided the interplay between the Nice Classification and the concept of “homogeneous categories of goods” is critical when assessing the genuine use of a trademark, particularly when determining whether the trademark’s use for metallic air vents can extend protection to non-metallic air vents in a different class.

Review of General Court Judgment Concerning Competition Investigation of Michelin

Michelin sought to annul the Commission’s decision to conduct an inspection for potential violations of EU competition law. The General Court partially annulled the Commission’s decision, finding that while the decision was generally well-founded, the Commission lacked sufficient evidence to justify suspicions of anti-competitive behavior during a specific earlier period.

Review of General Court Judgment on Rubik’s Cube Shape Trademark

This judgment concerns an application for annulment of a decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) regarding the Rubik’s Cube. The General Court agreed with EUIPO and upheld the decision to invalidate the three-dimensional trade mark. The trademark consisted exclusively of a shape necessary to obtain a technical result, specifically the functionality of a three-dimensional puzzle.

Review of General Court Judgment T-437/23 – Hala Almaghout v Council – Restrictive Measures on Syria

This judgment analyzes an action by Hala Almaghout against the Council of the European Union regarding restrictive measures that froze her funds and restricted her travel due to her relationship with the Syrian regime. The General Court annulled the Council’s decisions, finding that the Council had made an error of assessment in maintaining Ms. Almaghout’s name on the list. The court found that Ms. Almaghout had successfully rebutted the presumption that she was associated with the Syrian regime.

Review of General Court Judgment on Access to Documents Held by European Parliament

This judgment addressed Eva Kaili’s request for access to documents concerning alleged irregularities in the management of allowances for accredited parliamentary assistants. The Parliament refused access, citing the need to protect court proceedings, a justification the Court determined to be incorrect. This decision highlights the need to balance transparency with the protection of court proceedings and other legal considerations.

Review of General Court Judgment T-74/24 – Seedless Gold International v CPVO

This case is about an application for registration of the transfer of Community plant variety protection for the “Queen” variety and the obligation of due diligence of CPVO. The Court confirmed that the CPVO has a duty of due diligence when registering the transfer of plant variety protection, that means, the CPVO must carefully examine the documents submitted to ensure they are coherent and reliable before registering the transfer.

Review of General Court Judgment on Trade Mark Opposition: AirPlus v Alpian

This judgement addressed a trademark dispute between AirPlus and Alpian. AirPlus argued that Alpian’s trademark was too similar to their existing one and would cause confusion. The General Court ultimately ruled that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks.

Review of General Court Judgment on Restrictive Measures Against Ghada Mhana

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding restrictive measures against Syria. The Applicant sought the annulment of the Council’s decision and compensation for the damages she allegedly suffered due to the restrictive measures. The Court rejected all of the applicant’s claims and ruled in favour of the Council.

Review of General Court Judgment on Trade Mark Opposition: AirPlus v Alpian

This judgement addressed a trademark dispute between AirPlus and Alpian. AirPlus argued that Alpian’s trademark was too similar to their existing one and would cause confusion. EUIPO’s Board of Appeal dismissed AirPlus’s appeal, finding no likelihood of confusion. AirPlus then challenged this decision before the General Court and it lost once again.

Review of General Court Judgment on Rubik’s Cube Shape Trade Mark (Spin Master Toys UK Ltd)

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an action brought by Spin Master Toys UK Ltd against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). This ruling centered on whether the three-dimensional shape of a cube with a grid structure on its faces, differentiated by colors, can be registered as an EU trade mark. The General Court found against Spin Master’s and upheld the ruling that the item does not meet requirements to receive EU trade mark protections.

Review of General Court Judgment on EU Trademark Likelihood of Confusion: FIZI AQUA vs. FRIZE

The Court ruled that there is no likelihood of confusion between the “FIZI AQUA” trade mark applied for by Krynica Vitamin S.A. and the earlier Portuguese word mark “FRIZE” and figurative mark “FrizE” owned by Sumol + Compal Marcas, S.A.. The Court emphasized that the assessment must be global, considering the perception of the relevant public and all relevant factors.

Review of General Court Judgment on Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v EUIPO (Rubik’s Cube Trade Mark)

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an action brought by Spin Master Toys UK Ltd against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The General Court dismissed Spin Master’s action, upholding the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision that the trade mark was invalid, agreeing that the trade mark consisted exclusively of a shape necessary to obtain a technical result.

Review of General Court Judgment on Wanglaoji Trade Mark

This judgment analyzes whether an EU trade mark (consisting of three Chinese characters) was registered in bad faith. The Court emphasizes that bad faith requires a dishonest intention and that any claim of bad faith must be assessed based on all relevant factual circumstances. The judgment also clarifies that the “first to file” principle can be applied unless bad faith is demonstrated.

Review of General Court Judgment on Target Brands Trade Mark

This judgment concerns an action brought by Target Brands, Inc. against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). Target Brands, Inc. sought to annul a decision by EUIPO that declared their figurative mark, consisting of three red and white concentric circles, invalid. The court upheld EUIPO’s ruling that the mark lacked distinctive character and, therefore, could not be protected as a trade mark.

Review of General Court Judgment on Kinda Makhlouf

The judgment dismissed Makhlouf’s claims, upholding the Council’s decision. The court finds that the Council did not violate Makhlouf’s rights of defense, did not commit an error of assessment in maintaining her on the list, and did not disproportionately limit her fundamental rights.

Review of General Court Judgment T-387/24 – Sara Makhlouf v Council

This judgment analyzes an action by Sara Makhlouf against the Council of the European Union regarding restrictive measures that froze her funds and restricted her travel due to her relationship with the Syrian regime. The judgment clarifies that the “family membership criterion” is an objective and autonomous criterion, sufficient in itself to justify the adoption of restrictive measures against members of the Makhlouf family.

Review of General Court on interpretation of Articles 7 and 8 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (MK case)

The judgement centered on the interpretation of “release for consumption” as defined in Article 7(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC. The main topic of the judgement highlights the interpretation of key regulations, confirming that a fictitious supply of goods based on falsified invoices doesn’t constitute “release for consumption” under EU excise duty laws.

Review of General Court Judgment T-1171/23 – Validity of Shape Trademark for Cube with Grid Structure

This judgment considers The General Court finds that the essential characteristics of the contested mark (cube shape, grid structure, and color differentiation) are functional and necessary to achieve a technical result, confirming that the trade mark consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result.

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1269 of 6 May 2025 laying down rules supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the electronic system for agricultural non-customs formalities (ELAN) to monitor and manage trade and market in agricultural products

This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1269 establishes the legal framework for the Electronic system for Agricultural Non-customs formalities (ELAN). ELAN is designed to monitor and manage trade and market in agricultural products by creating an electronic system for handling non-customs formalities. The system aims to streamline cooperation between authorities and ensure secure and reliable management of agricultural trade-related documents. ELAN will be interconnected with the EU Single Window Environment for Customs to facilitate seamless information exchange.

The Regulation consists of 8 articles. It defines the scope of ELAN, specifying the types of documents it will handle, including import and export licenses, certificates of authenticity, and other documents required for managing tariff rate quotas. It outlines the obligations and rights of the Commission in maintaining and overseeing ELAN. The regulation also details who has access to the data, information, and documents within ELAN, including national and third-country issuing authorities, customs authorities, and the Commission. Finally, it sets the rules for the storage and retention periods of documents and data within the system, ensuring compliance with data protection principles.

The most important provisions of this act concern the access rights to ELAN and the retention periods for documents. The regulation specifies which authorities have access to which documents, ensuring data protection and limiting access to relevant parties only. The rule establishing a 10-year retention period for documents and related data is also crucial for maintaining the integrity and availability of records for potential disputes or audits. The regulation will apply as of 15 July 2025, except for the provisions on storage and retention periods, which will apply from 19 January 2026.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1268 of 6 May 2025 amending Delegated Regulations (EU) 2016/1237 and (EU) 2020/760 as a consequence of the establishment of the Electronic system for Agricultural Non-customs formalities (ELAN)

This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1268 amends Delegated Regulations (EU) 2016/1237 and (EU) 2020/760 to accommodate the establishment of the Electronic system for Agricultural Non-customs formalities (ELAN). The aim is to optimize trade of agricultural products by making all required documents available electronically to customs authorities via the EU Single Window Environment for Customs. This involves updating the rules for import and export licenses and tariff rate quotas, ensuring compatibility with the new ELAN system. The Regulation also addresses transitional periods, fallback solutions for system unavailability, and adjustments to notification requirements for Member States.

The Regulation modifies Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1237 by adding definitions related to ELAN and updating requirements for import and export licenses. It details how customs declarations should be lodged, clarifies the transfer of license rights, and adjusts notification requirements for replacement licenses and other relevant information. It also removes the obligation to issue licenses for garlic and clarifies the compliance of hemp import licenses with the new ELAN data model.
Regarding Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/760, the amending regulation includes ELAN-related regulations in the list of applicable rules. It modifies the process for submitting proof of release for free circulation or export, allowing for electronic retrieval of this information from ELAN. The requirement for customs declarations to include invoice numbers is removed, and notification requirements for Member States are updated to reflect the use of ELAN.

The most important provisions for practical use include the shift to electronic licenses via ELAN, the transitional arrangements allowing for both paper and electronic documents, and the updated procedures for customs declarations and license transfers. Economic operators and Member States need to adapt to the new ELAN system for managing import and export licenses, while also being aware of the fallback options and transitional rules.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1322 of 4 July 2025 specifying the technical items of the data set, establishing the technical formats for transmission of information and specifying the arrangements and content of the quality reports on the organisation of a sample survey in the use of information and communication technologies domain for reference year 2026 pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/1700 of the European Parliament and of the Council

Okay, I will provide a detailed description of the provisions of the act.

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2025/1322 of 4 July 2025 specifies the technical details for a sample survey on the use of information and communication technologies (ICT). This regulation aims to standardize data collection and transmission across EU member states for the reference year 2026. It outlines the specific data points to be gathered, the formats for transmitting this data to Eurostat, and the content and structure of quality reports that member states must provide. The regulation ensures that comparable and high-quality data on ICT usage is available for statistical analysis at the European level.

The regulation is structured around several key articles and an annex:

* **Article 1** defines the subject matter, clarifying that the regulation specifies technical items of the data set, establishes technical formats for data transmission, and specifies arrangements for quality reports in the ICT domain.
* **Article 2** provides definitions for terms such as ‘fieldwork period,’ ‘reference period,’ and ‘Single Entry Point’ to ensure consistent interpretation.
* **Article 3** describes the variables, outlining their identifiers, names, descriptions, codes, labels, filters, and types.
* **Articles 4-7** detail the characteristics of target populations, observation units, rules for respondents, reference periods, data gathering periods, and common standards for data editing, imputation, and estimation.
* **Articles 8 and 9** focus on the deadline and standards for transmitting data, as well as the detailed arrangements and content of annual quality reports.
* **Article 10** states the regulation’s entry into force.

The Annex provides an extensive list of variables to be collected, including technical items, person and household characteristics, labor market participation, educational attainment, health status, income, information society participation (access to ICT, use and frequency, internet activities, barriers, interaction with public authorities, e-commerce, digital skills, security, privacy, trust, connection to the internet, and effect of use).

Key provisions of the act that are most important for its use:

* **Standardized Data Set:** The regulation provides a detailed list of variables (in the Annex) that must be collected, ensuring that all member states gather comparable information.
* **Technical Formats for Data Transmission:** It establishes specific technical formats for how data must be transmitted to Eurostat, promoting efficient data processing and analysis.
* **Quality Reports:** The requirement for annual quality reports ensures that member states assess and report on the quality of their data, enhancing the reliability of EU-wide statistics.
* **Reference and Fieldwork Periods:** Clear specification of reference periods (Article 5) and fieldwork periods (Article 6) ensures consistency in when data is collected and to what time frame it applies.
* **Data Standards:** Common standards for data editing, imputation, and estimation (Article 7) are outlined to maintain the integrity and comparability of the data.
* **Single Entry Point:** The use of the Single Entry Point (Article 8 and 9) for data transmission and quality report submission streamlines the process and facilitates data retrieval by Eurostat.
* **Classifications:** The regulation recommends the use of standard classifications such as NUTS, ISCED, ISCO, and NACE (recital 6) to further enhance data harmonization.

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1347 of 8 July 2025 implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/735 concerning restrictive measures in respect of the situation in South Sudan

This Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1347 concerns restrictive measures against individuals responsible for obstructing the peace process and violating human rights in South Sudan. The regulation updates the identifying information and statement of reasons for one individual already subject to sanctions. This update reinforces the EU’s commitment to promoting peace and stability in South Sudan by maintaining pressure on those who undermine these efforts.

The structure of the act is straightforward. It consists of a preamble outlining the reasons for the regulation, followed by two articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that Annex II of Regulation (EU) 2015/735 is amended according to the annex of this new regulation. Article 2 states the regulation’s entry into force. The annex provides the updated information for the listed individual. The main change is the replacement of entry No. 1 in Annex II of the original regulation with updated details regarding Michael Makuei Lueth, including an updated statement of reasons for maintaining restrictive measures against him.

The most important provision of this regulation is the updated entry in Annex II concerning Michael Makuei Lueth. This update includes detailed reasons for maintaining sanctions, citing his obstruction of the peace agreement, involvement in curtailing political and democratic space, repression of media, and confrontational rhetoric. This information is crucial for ensuring that the sanctions are targeted and justified, and for informing the public and other relevant parties about the reasons behind the restrictive measures. **** This regulation may have implications for individuals and entities dealing with South Sudan, particularly concerning adherence to EU sanctions regimes.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1271 of 6 May 2025 amending Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1239, (EU) 2020/761, (EU) 2020/1988 and (EU) 2023/2834 as a consequence of the establishment of the Electronic system for Agricultural Non-customs formalities (ELAN), and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1988 as regards two new tariff quota numbers for imports of rice from Bangladesh

Here’s a breakdown of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1271:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This regulation amends several existing regulations to integrate the new Electronic system for Agricultural Non-customs formalities (ELAN) into the process of importing and exporting agricultural products. It aims to streamline trade by digitizing documents and making them accessible to customs authorities through the EU Single Window Environment for Customs. Additionally, it addresses specific tariff quota issues, such as those related to rice imports from Bangladesh.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The regulation is structured as a series of amendments to existing implementing regulations: (EU) 2016/1239, (EU) 2020/761, (EU) 2020/1988 and (EU) 2023/2834.

* **Amendments related to ELAN:**
* Introduces definitions related to ELAN and the EU Single Window Environment for Customs.
* Specifies how import and export licenses should be applied for, issued, and managed within the ELAN system.
* Outlines transitional periods for the implementation of ELAN, including voluntary use, mandatory data models, and full system integration.
* Addresses the use of electronic signatures and stamps for validation.
* Modifies procedures for customs declarations, quantity attributions, license transfers, and corrections to accommodate the electronic system.
* Specifies the information to be included in import and export licenses issued in accordance with the ELAN data models.
* Harmonizes templates for documents issued by third countries to simplify their management in ELAN.
* **Amendments related to Tariff Rate Quotas:**
* Updates rules for tariff rate quotas managed with licenses and those managed on a “first come, first served” basis.
* Adds new tariff quota numbers for imports of rice from Bangladesh, reflecting updated conversion rates for rice products.
* Clarifies how to complete specific sections of import and export licenses for various agricultural products, including Basmati rice, sugar, and cheese.
* Specifies the documents required for proof of origin and authenticity for certain tariff quotas.

**3. Main Provisions for Use:**

* **Transitional Periods:** The regulation establishes a phased implementation of ELAN, with different deadlines for voluntary use, mandatory data models, and full system integration. Businesses and authorities need to be aware of these timelines to ensure compliance.
* **Data Models:** The regulation introduces new data models (ELAN1L-AGRIM, ELAN1L-AGREX, and ELAN1L-TCDOC) for import and export licenses and third-country documents. Understanding and using these data models correctly is crucial for seamless trade operations.
* **Electronic vs. Paper Documents:** The regulation specifies when electronic documents are required and when paper documents are still acceptable, particularly during the transitional periods and in cases of temporary system unavailability.
* **Third-Country Documents:** The regulation outlines the requirements for documents issued by third countries, including the use of the ELAN1L-TCDOC template and the procedures for notifying the Commission of these documents.
* **Specific Product Requirements:** The regulation includes specific instructions for completing licenses and providing documentation for certain agricultural products, such as Basmati rice, sugar, and cheese.

: This regulation is relevant for businesses and authorities involved in the import and export of agricultural products to and from the European Union. The implementation of ELAN and the associated changes to licensing and documentation requirements will have a direct impact on trade operations.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1344 of 9 July 2025 amending Implementing Regulations (EU) 2020/761 and (EU) 2020/1988 and Regulation (EC) No 218/2007 as regards tariff measures for certain agricultural goods originating in or exported directly or indirectly from Belarus and Russia

Here’s a breakdown of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1344:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This regulation amends existing regulations concerning tariff rate quotas for certain agricultural goods. Specifically, it modifies Implementing Regulations (EU) 2020/761 and (EU) 2020/1988 and Regulation (EC) No 218/2007 to reflect tariff measures imposed on goods originating in or exported from Belarus and Russia. These changes are in response to potential economic vulnerabilities and market disruptions caused by continued imports from these countries. The regulation aims to ensure the effective management and timely application of these tariff measures.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The regulation is structured into 4 articles.

* **Article 1** focuses on amendments to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/761. It modifies Annexes II, III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII, specifically targeting tariff quotas identified by their order numbers. The key changes involve revising the “Origin” and “Specific entries to be made on the licence application and on the licence” sections for these quotas. The “Origin” section is updated to exclude Belarus, Russia, and in some cases, other countries like the United Kingdom, China, Argentina, Brazil, Thailand, Australia, Guyana, India, Pakistan, Canada and the United States of America from eligibility for the quota. The “Specific entries” section mandates a statement on licenses indicating that they cannot be used for products originating from the excluded countries.
* **Article 2** amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1988. It modifies Annex I, updating the “Origin” section for various tariff quotas to exclude Belarus, Russia, the United Kingdom, and in some cases, other countries like China, Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina, Australia, Chile, Greenland, Iceland, New Zealand, Uruguay from eligibility.
* **Article 3** amends Regulation (EC) No 218/2007, modifying Article 1 to exclude Belarus and Russia from the list of countries eligible for certain tariff quotas for wines.
* **Article 4** defines the entry into force and application date of the regulation, specifying that it comes into effect the day after its publication and applies from 20 July 2025.

**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**

* **Country of Origin Restrictions:** The most important aspect is the explicit exclusion of goods originating from Belarus and Russia (and in some cases, other countries) from specific tariff rate quotas.
* **Licence Requirements:** Importers need to ensure that their import licenses for the specified tariff quotas include the statement in Section 24: “Not to be used for products originating in [list of excluded countries]”. This statement is crucial for compliance.
* **Compliance:** Traders need to carefully check the origin of their goods and ensure that they comply with the updated rules to avoid rejection of their applications or other penalties.
* **Reference to Regulation (EU) 2025/1227:** This implementing regulation is directly linked to Regulation (EU) 2025/1227, which introduced the initial tariff measures. Understanding the scope and provisions of Regulation (EU) 2025/1227 is essential for interpreting and applying this implementing regulation correctly.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1272 of 6 May 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the electronic system for agricultural non-customs formalities (ELAN)

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1272 establishes the Electronic system for Agricultural Non-customs formalities (ELAN). ELAN aims to streamline and secure the exchange and storage of documents required for non-customs formalities related to trade in agricultural products with third countries. The system will facilitate cooperation between authorities and customs, ensuring the authenticity, integrity, and confidentiality of trade-related documents. ELAN will be interconnected with the EU Single Window Environment for Customs (EU CSW-CERTEX) to enable seamless information exchange.

The regulation is structured into four sections covering introductory and technical provisions, contingency measures, and final clauses. It defines the scope of ELAN, specifying the types of documents it will manage, such as import and export licenses and documents required for tariff rate quotas. It also outlines the technical requirements for document formats, data models, and the electronic signatures or seals necessary for authentication. The regulation includes a transitional period for the phased implementation of ELAN, starting with testing in July 2025 and full operation by October 2028.

The most important provisions for users concern the transitional period and the contingency measures. The regulation details the timeline for the voluntary and mandatory use of ELAN for different types of documents. It also provides specific procedures to follow in case of system unavailability, including the use of paper documents and the subsequent registration of these documents in ELAN once the system is restored. These contingency provisions ensure business continuity for both ELAN users and economic operators during maintenance or technical disruptions.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1356 of 8 July 2025 amending Annexes I and II to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 laying down special disease control measures for African swine fever

Here’s a breakdown of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1356:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This regulation amends Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594, which lays down special disease control measures for African swine fever (ASF). The amendment adjusts the geographical areas listed in Annexes I and II of the original regulation, designating specific zones within certain EU member states as restricted zones (I, II, or III) or infected zones based on recent outbreaks and the evolving epidemiological situation of ASF. The goal is to contain the spread of the disease through targeted control measures in affected regions.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

* **Article 1:** This is the core of the regulation, stating that Annexes I and II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 are replaced by the text provided in the Annex of this new regulation. This means the geographical classifications of restricted and infected zones are being updated.
* **Article 2:** Specifies that the regulation comes into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This highlights the urgency of the measures.
* **Annex:** This section contains the updated lists of restricted zones (I, II, and III) in Annex I and infected zones in Annex II for specific Member States. These lists detail the specific administrative regions (e.g., Bundesländer, Landkreise, municipalities) that fall under each zone classification.

**Changes Compared to Previous Versions:**

The regulation directly amends Annexes I and II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594, replacing them with new lists. This is in response to new outbreaks of African swine fever in both wild and kept porcine animals in several Member States (Germany, Italy, Poland, Estonia, Greece, Latvia). The changes involve:

* **Delisting:** Removing areas from Part A of Annex II (infected zones).
* **Listing:** Adding or modifying areas in Annex I as restricted zones I, II, or III.
* **Reclassification:** Upgrading areas from a lower-level restricted zone (e.g., I) to a higher one (e.g., II or III) to reflect increased risk.
* **Redefining Boundaries:** Adjusting the geographical limits of existing restricted zones to account for new outbreaks or changes in the epidemiological situation.

**3. Main Provisions Important for Use:**

* **Geographical Scope:** The most important aspect is the detailed listing of specific regions within Member States that are now classified as restricted zones (I, II, and III) or infected zones. This determines which control measures apply in those areas.
* **Restricted Zones I, II and III:** The regulation establishes different levels of restricted zones. Each level has specific measures that must be implemented.
* **Entry into Force:** The immediate entry into force emphasizes the urgency of implementing these changes to control the spread of African swine fever.

**** This regulation has implications for Ukraine, as African Swine Fever is a significant concern in Eastern Europe, and the measures implemented by EU member states can influence the spread of the disease in neighboring countries. Ukrainians involved in pig farming or trade with the EU should pay close attention to the restrictions and requirements in the affected zones.

Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1350 of 8 July 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2025/202 fixing for 2025 and 2026 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters

This Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1350 amends the existing Regulation (EU) 2025/202, which sets fishing opportunities for 2025 and 2026. The amendments are necessary to incorporate new scientific advice, outcomes of consultations with third countries, and decisions from regional fisheries management organizations. These changes affect total allowable catches (TACs) and technical measures for various fish stocks in Union and non-Union waters.

The regulation modifies several key aspects of the original act. It adjusts TACs for anchovy, Northern prawn, sprat, and red seabream based on updated scientific advice and agreements with Norway and the United Kingdom. It implements catch limits and associated measures for cod in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) divisions and for chub mackerel in the North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC) Convention area. Additionally, it allows for a specific derogation regarding eel fishing, permitting Member States to assist migrating silver eels under strict conditions.

Several provisions are particularly important. The revised TACs for key species like anchovy and sprat directly impact fishing quotas for Member States. The technical measures for Northern prawn in the Skagerrak introduce real-time closures to protect juvenile populations. The derogation for eel fishing provides a mechanism for Member States to aid eel migration while ensuring conservation. Finally, the implementation of NPFC measures for chub mackerel sets catch and effort limits for Union vessels in the North Pacific.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1331 of 9 July 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1803 as regards International Financial Reporting Standards 1, 7, 9 and 10, and International Accounting Standard 7

This Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1331 amends Regulation (EU) 2023/1803 to incorporate the “Annual Improvements to IFRS Accounting Standards – Volume 11” issued by the International Accounting Standards Board. These improvements streamline and clarify existing standards, addressing inconsistencies and wording clarifications in IFRS 1, IFRS 7, IFRS 9, IFRS 10, and IAS 7. The amendments are applicable for financial years starting on or after 1 January 2026, with earlier application permitted.

The regulation amends the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2023/1803, specifically targeting IFRS 1, IFRS 7, IFRS 9, IFRS 10, and IAS 7. For IFRS 1, it clarifies aspects related to hedge accounting upon transition to IFRSs. For IFRS 7, it requires additional disclosures regarding gains or losses on derecognition of financial assets with continuing involvement, especially when fair value measurements involve significant unobservable inputs. For IFRS 9, the amendments refine the scope and initial measurement of financial instruments, particularly concerning lease liabilities and trade receivables. For IFRS 10, the amendments clarify the assessment of control, specifically regarding de facto agents. Lastly, for IAS 7, the amendment addresses the reporting of cash flows related to investments in associates, joint ventures, and subsidiaries.

The most important provision is Article 2, which mandates that companies apply these amendments at the latest from the commencement date of their first financial year starting on or after 1 January 2026. This ensures a consistent and updated application of international accounting standards across the European Union.

Urteil des Gerichts (Sechste Kammer) vom 9. Juli 2025.#sprd.net AG gegen Amt der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum.#Unionsmarke – Anmeldung einer Unionspositionsmarke, die aus einem Großbuchstaben ‚I‘ und einem roten Herzen außen im Nackenbereich eines Bekleidungsstücks besteht – Absolutes Eintragungshindernis – Fehlende Unterscheidungskraft – Art. 7 Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Verordnung (EU) 2017/1001 – Begründungspflicht – Art. 94 Abs. 1 der Verordnung 2017/1001 – Ermittlung des Sachverhalts von Amts wegen – Art. 95 Abs. 1 der Verordnung 2017/1001.#Rechtssache T-306/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of the European Union, delivered on July 9, 2025, in Case T-306/24, between sprd.net AG and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case concerns the registrability of a European Union trademark.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment addresses whether a position mark consisting of a capital “I” and a red heart on a garment at the nape of the neck can be registered as a European Union trademark. The General Court upholds the EUIPO’s decision to reject the trademark application based on the grounds that the mark lacks distinctive character. The Court finds that the sign is perceived as a common laudatory message (“I love”) and does not serve to distinguish the origin of the goods.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **Introduction:** Identifies the parties, the contested decision, and the subject matter of the dispute.
* **Background to the Dispute:** Describes the application for the trademark, the description of the mark, the goods concerned (clothing), and the reasons for the initial rejection by the examiner.
* **Conclusions of the Parties:** Summarizes the arguments made by sprd.net AG (the applicant) and the EUIPO (the defendant).
* **Law:** This section contains the legal analysis and the court’s reasoning. It is divided into sections addressing each of the applicant’s pleas:

* Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 (lack of distinctive character).
* Violation of Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 (EUIPO’s duty to examine the facts of its own motion).
* Violation of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 (obligation to state reasons).
* Violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness.
* **Costs:** Determines which party is responsible for covering the costs of the proceedings.
* **Operative Part:** States the court’s decision to dismiss the action and orders the applicant to pay the costs.

The main provisions discussed in the judgment are:

* **Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001:** This article prohibits the registration of trademarks that are devoid of any distinctive character.
* **Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001:** Requires that decisions of the EUIPO state the reasons on which they are based.
* **Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001:** States that in proceedings before it the EUIPO shall examine the facts of its own motion.

**Main Provisions Important for Use:**

The most important provisions for the use of this judgment are the court’s interpretation and application of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 regarding the distinctive character of trademarks, particularly position marks. The court emphasizes that a mark must enable consumers to identify the origin of the goods and distinguish them from those of other undertakings. The court also clarifies that the distinctiveness of a position mark is not automatically established simply because it is a position mark. The court considers the public perception of the mark, the habits of the sector, and whether the mark deviates significantly from the norms or customs of the sector.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2025.Guangzhou Wanglaoji Grand Health Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Figurative marks representing three Chinese characters – Word mark WANG LAO JI – Absolute ground for invalidity – Bad faith – Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).Joined Cases T-121/24 to T-127/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over EU trade marks. The case revolves around applications for a declaration of invalidity of several EU trade marks, including figurative marks representing three Chinese characters and the word mark “WANG LAO JI”. The applicant, Guangzhou Wanglaoji Grand Health Co. Ltd, sought to invalidate these marks, arguing that the intervener, Multi Access Ltd, acted in bad faith when filing the applications for registration.

The structure of the judgment involves the General Court addressing the applicant’s claims that the EUIPO Board of Appeal erred in dismissing its appeals against the Cancellation Division’s decisions. The court considers the admissibility of evidence submitted by the applicant, the applicable law, and ultimately assesses whether the Board of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) concerning bad faith in trade mark registration. The General Court ultimately dismisses the action, upholding the validity of the contested trade marks.

The most important provision is Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, which allows for the invalidation of a trade mark if the applicant acted in bad faith when filing the registration application. The court’s interpretation of “bad faith” is crucial. It emphasizes that bad faith implies a dishonest state of mind or intention, and that the applicant for invalidity must prove circumstances showing the trade mark proprietor acted in bad faith. The judgment also highlights the importance of considering all relevant factual circumstances when assessing bad faith, including the applicant’s knowledge of third-party use of similar signs, the applicant’s intention to prevent such use, and the degree of legal protection enjoyed by the third party’s sign.

Arrêt du Tribunal (sixième chambre) du 9 juillet 2025.#sprd.net AG contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne de position consistant en une majuscule “I” et un cœur rouge sur une étiquette intérieure d’un vêtement – Marque de position – Motif absolu de refus – Absence de caractère distinctif – Article 7, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001 – Obligation de motivation – Article 94, paragraphe 1, du règlement 2017/1001 – Examen d’office des faits – Article 95, paragraphe 1, du règlement 2017/1001.#Affaire T-305/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of the European Union, issued on July 9, 2025, in Case T-305/24, between sprd.net AG and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case concerns the registrability of a European Union trademark.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment addresses whether a position mark consisting of a capital “I” and a red heart on an interior clothing label is distinctive enough to be registered as a European Union trademark. The General Court upheld EUIPO’s decision to reject the trademark application, finding that the mark lacks distinctiveness and would not be perceived by the relevant public as an indication of origin. The court considered that the sign is a common laudatory message (“I love”) and that its specific placement does not automatically confer distinctiveness.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **Introduction:** Identifies the parties and the purpose of the action (annulment of EUIPO’s decision).
* **Background:** Describes the trademark application, the contested decision by EUIPO, and the reasons for the refusal (lack of distinctiveness under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).
* **Arguments of the Parties:** Summarizes the applicant’s arguments for annulment and EUIPO’s arguments for dismissal.
* **Legal Assessment:** This is the core of the judgment, where the court examines each of the applicant’s pleas:
* Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 (lack of distinctiveness).
* Violation of Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 (EUIPO’s duty to examine the facts of its own motion).
* Violation of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 (obligation to state reasons).
* Violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness.
* **Decision:** The court rejects the action and orders the applicant to pay the costs.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

The main provisions discussed in the judgment are those related to the distinctiveness of a trademark, particularly position marks. The court relies on established case law regarding the assessment of distinctiveness, emphasizing that the relevant public must perceive the mark as an indicator of origin. The judgment clarifies that a sign lacking inherent distinctiveness does not automatically acquire it simply by being registered as a position mark. The court also considers the relevant sector’s practices but concludes that, in this case, the placement of the sign does not confer distinctiveness.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

The most important provisions for future use are the court’s interpretations of:

* **Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001:** This article is the basis for refusing trademarks that lack distinctiveness. The judgment reinforces the need for a trademark to be perceived as an indicator of origin.
* **The concept of “position mark”:** The judgment clarifies that the specific placement of a sign can be a factor in assessing distinctiveness, but it does not automatically confer distinctiveness on an otherwise non-distinctive sign.
* **EUIPO’s duty to examine facts:** The court confirms EUIPO’s obligation to examine the facts of its own motion but also acknowledges that EUIPO can rely on well-known facts.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 July 2025.Bouwbenodigdheden Hoogeveen BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark BIENENBEISSER – Genuine use of the mark – Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Proof of genuine use – Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark is registered – Role of the Nice classification – Homogeneous category of goods – Air vents – Obligation to state reasons.Case T-144/24.

This is the analysis of the Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 July 2025 in Case T-144/24, Bouwbenodigdheden Hoogeveen BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment concerns the annulment of a decision by the EUIPO Board of Appeal regarding the revocation of the EU trade mark “BIENENBEISSER.” The core issue is whether the trade mark’s genuine use for metallic air vents (Class 6) can extend protection to non-metallic air vents (Class 19), despite the Nice Classification separating these materials into different classes. The General Court found that the Board of Appeal failed to adequately explain why it rejected the applicant’s argument that metallic and non-metallic air vents belong to the same homogeneous category of goods.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses an action brought by Bouwbenodigdheden Hoogeveen BV against a decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal. The Board of Appeal had upheld the revocation of the “BIENENBEISSER” trade mark for certain goods in Classes 6 and 19, specifically “building materials (non-metallic), including air vents” in Class 19.

The General Court’s analysis revolves around Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which concerns the revocation of a trade mark if it has not been put to genuine use within a continuous period of five years. The court examines whether the use of the trade mark for metallic air vents constitutes genuine use that can extend to non-metallic air vents.

The key points of contention are:

* **Nice Classification:** The role of the Nice Classification in determining the scope of protection of a trade mark.
* **Homogeneous Category of Goods:** Whether metallic and non-metallic air vents can be considered a single, homogeneous category of goods.
* **Obligation to State Reasons:** Whether the Board of Appeal adequately justified its decision to reject the applicant’s arguments.

The General Court ultimately annuls the Board of Appeal’s decision, finding that it failed to provide sufficient reasoning for rejecting the applicant’s claim that metallic and non-metallic air vents belong to the same homogeneous category.

**Main Provisions Important for Use:**

The most important aspects of this judgment are:

1. **The interplay between the Nice Classification and the concept of “homogeneous categories of goods” in assessing genuine use of a trade mark.** While the Nice Classification is relevant for determining the scope of protection, it is not the sole factor. The purpose and intended use of the goods are also critical in defining a homogeneous category.
2. **The obligation of EUIPO to provide a sufficient statement of reasons when making decisions that affect the rights of trade mark holders.** This includes explaining why arguments and evidence presented by the applicant are rejected.
3. **The clarification that even if goods fall into different Nice classes, they can still be considered a single category if they serve the same purpose and are seen as interchangeable by consumers.**

Arrêt du Tribunal (deuxième chambre) du 9 juillet 2025.#Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin contre Commission européenne.#Concurrence – Ententes – Procédure administrative – Décision ordonnant une inspection – Article 20, paragraphe 4, du règlement (CE) no 1/2003 – Objet et but de l’inspection – Obligation de motivation – Indices suffisamment sérieux – Protection de la vie privée – Contrôle juridictionnel.#Affaire T-188/24.

This is an analysis of a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding a competition case involving Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin and the European Commission. The case concerns a decision by the Commission to conduct an inspection of Michelin based on suspicions of anti-competitive practices.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment addresses Michelin’s challenge to the Commission’s decision to conduct an inspection for potential violations of EU competition law. Michelin argued that the decision was insufficiently motivated, violating its right to privacy and was disproportionate. The General Court partially annulled the Commission’s decision, finding that while the decision was generally well-founded, the Commission lacked sufficient evidence to justify suspicions of anti-competitive behavior during a specific earlier period.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **Background:** Outlines the facts of the dispute, including Michelin’s activities, the Commission’s decision to conduct an inspection, and the scope of the suspected anti-competitive practices (coordination of prices for new replacement tires for cars and trucks in the EEA).
* **Arguments of the Parties:** Summarizes Michelin’s arguments for annulment of the Commission’s decision (insufficient motivation, violation of the right to privacy) and the Commission’s counter-arguments.
* **Legal Assessment:** This is the core of the judgment, where the General Court analyzes Michelin’s claims.
* **Insufficient Motivation:** The Court rejects Michelin’s claim that the Commission’s decision was insufficiently motivated, finding that it provided enough detail about the object and purpose of the inspection to allow Michelin to understand the scope of its duty to cooperate and to allow the Court to exercise its review.
* **Violation of the Right to Privacy:** The Court addresses Michelin’s claim that the decision was arbitrary and disproportionate, violating its right to privacy.
* The Court acknowledges that legal persons, like natural persons, have a right to protection against arbitrary or disproportionate interventions by public authorities.
* The Court examines whether the Commission had sufficient evidence to suspect a violation of competition law and whether the scope of the inspection was limited to the suspected violation.
* The Court finds that the Commission did have sufficient evidence to suspect anti-competitive behavior during the “main period” under investigation. The Court cites public statements made by Michelin and its competitors during earnings calls as evidence of potential coordination of prices.
* However, the Court agrees with Michelin that the Commission lacked sufficient evidence to justify suspicions of anti-competitive behavior during an earlier period. The Court notes that the Commission could not provide any contemporary evidence to support its suspicions regarding this period.
* **Proportionality:** The Court rejects Michelin’s claim that the inspection was disproportionate, finding that the Commission’s actions were necessary to gather information and that the inspection was conducted in a reasonable manner.
* **Decision on Costs:** The Court orders each party to bear its own costs, as Michelin’s claim was partially successful.

**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**

* **Obligation of Motivation:** The judgment reinforces the requirement that decisions ordering inspections under EU competition law must be sufficiently motivated, clearly stating the object and purpose of the inspection.
* **Sufficient Evidence:** The judgment clarifies that the Commission must have “sufficiently serious” evidence to suspect a violation of competition law before ordering an inspection. This evidence must be more than mere speculation but need not be conclusive proof of a violation.
* **Scope of Inspection:** The judgment emphasizes that the scope of an inspection must be limited to the suspected violation and that the Commission cannot use an inspection as a “fishing expedition” to uncover evidence of other potential violations.
* **Right to Privacy:** The judgment confirms that legal persons have a right to protection against arbitrary or disproportionate interventions by public authorities, including the right to privacy in their business premises and communications.
* **Proportionality:** The judgment reiterates that inspections must be proportionate to the objective pursued and must not impose an excessive burden on the undertaking being inspected.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2025.Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Three-dimensional EU trade mark – Shape of a cube with faces having a grid structure and differentiated by their colours – Absolute ground for invalidity – Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result – Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.Case T-1170/23.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an application for annulment of a decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case concerns the validity of a three-dimensional EU trade mark representing the shape of a cube with a grid structure and differentiated colors on its faces, similar to a Rubik’s Cube.

**Essence of the Act:**

The General Court upheld EUIPO’s decision to invalidate the trade mark. The court agreed that the trade mark consisted exclusively of a shape necessary to obtain a technical result, specifically the functionality of a three-dimensional puzzle. The court found that the essential characteristics of the mark, including the cube shape, grid structure, and color differentiation, were all functional and necessary for the puzzle’s operation.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* Background to the Dispute: Describes the history of the case, including the application for the declaration of invalidity, the contested trade mark, and the goods and services covered.
* Forms of Order Sought: Outlines the requests made by the applicant (Spin Master Toys UK Ltd) and the responses from EUIPO and the intervener (Verdes Innovations SA).
* Law: Details the relevant legal provisions, primarily Article 7(1)(e)(ii) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, concerning grounds for invalidity of EU trade marks.
* Preliminary Observations: Clarifies the type of trade mark in question (three-dimensional) and the technical result it achieves (a puzzle with colored faces).
* Analysis of the Applicant’s Plea: This is the core of the judgment, where the court addresses the applicant’s arguments against the invalidity decision. The plea is divided into three parts:

* Identification of Essential Characteristics: The court identifies the essential characteristics of the trade mark as the cube shape, grid structure, and color differentiation on the faces.
* Analysis of Functionality: The court determines that these essential characteristics are functional and necessary to achieve a technical result.
* Assessment Relating to “Jigsaw Puzzles”: The court addresses the applicant’s argument that the trade mark should not be invalidated for “jigsaw puzzles” specifically.
* Costs: Determines that the applicant must pay the costs of the proceedings.

**Main Provisions and Changes Compared to Previous Versions:**

The key provision is Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009, which prohibits the registration of signs consisting exclusively of the shape of goods necessary to obtain a technical result. The court interprets this provision to prevent the extension of patent-like protection through trade mark law.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

The most important aspects of this judgment are:

* **Functionality:** The judgment reinforces the principle that shapes with essential functional characteristics cannot be protected as trade marks.
* **Essential Characteristics:** The court’s analysis of the essential characteristics of the trade mark is crucial. It highlights the importance of identifying the most important elements of a sign when assessing functionality.
* **Color as Part of Shape:** The court clarifies that color can be an integral part of a shape mark and can be considered in the functionality analysis.
* **Jigsaw Puzzles:** The judgment confirms that even if a product is not the first example of a jigsaw puzzle, it can still be considered as such if it meets the definition.
* **Clarity and Precision:** The judgment highlights the importance of clarity and precision in the description of goods and services for which a trade mark is applied.

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 July 2025.Hala Almaghout v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Syria – Freezing of funds – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources – Restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States – List of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States – Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – Error of assessment.Case T-437/23.

This is the analysis of the Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 July 2025 in Case T-437/23, Hala Almaghout v Council of the European Union.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment concerns an action brought by Ms. Hala Almaghout against the Council of the European Union, seeking the annulment of Council Decisions and Implementing Regulations from 2023 and 2024 that maintained her name on the EU’s list of individuals subject to restrictive measures (freezing of funds and travel restrictions) in view of the situation in Syria. The General Court annulled the Council’s decisions, finding that the Council had made an error of assessment in maintaining Ms. Almaghout’s name on the list. The court found that Ms. Almaghout had successfully rebutted the presumption that she was associated with the Syrian regime.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **Background:** It outlines the context of the restrictive measures adopted by the EU against Syria since 2011, particularly targeting individuals responsible for violent repression or those benefiting from or supporting the Syrian regime. It details how Ms. Almaghout, as the widow of Mohammed Makhlouf (a relative of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad), was initially added to the list in 2022 based on her family membership.
* **Arguments:** Ms. Almaghout argued that her inclusion on the list was unjustified because she had no association with the Syrian regime, exercised no influence over it, and posed no risk of circumvention of sanctions. She claimed to be a victim of persecution by the regime and the Makhlouf family.
* **Court’s Analysis:** The court addressed whether the “family membership criterion” was sufficient to justify restrictive measures and whether Ms. Almaghout had successfully rebutted the presumption of association with the Syrian regime. The court examined evidence presented by both sides, including witness statements, reports, and legal documents.
* **Decision:** The General Court concluded that Ms. Almaghout had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate her distance from the Makhlouf family and her conflictual relationship with the Syrian regime. The court found that the Council’s reliance on a property sale from 2010 as evidence of a risk of circumvention was insufficient to outweigh Ms. Almaghout’s evidence.
* **Temporal Effects and Costs:** The court annulled the relevant Council Decisions and Implementing Regulations concerning Ms. Almaghout and ordered the Council to pay her costs.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

* **Family Membership Criterion:** The judgment discusses the application of the “family membership criterion” introduced in 2015, which allows for restrictive measures against members of the Assad or Makhlouf families. The court clarifies that this criterion establishes a rebuttable presumption of association with the Syrian regime.
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment emphasizes that while the Council has a degree of discretion, the EU courts must ensure a full review of the lawfulness of EU acts. The Council bears the burden of establishing that the reasons for imposing restrictive measures are well-founded.
* **Rebutting the Presumption:** The judgment details the standard of evidence required for an individual to rebut the presumption of association with the Syrian regime. The court states that an applicant must present specific, precise, and consistent evidence demonstrating a lack of association with the regime, no influence over it, and no risk of circumvention.
* **Assessment of Evidence:** The judgment outlines the principles for assessing the probative value of different types of evidence, including witness statements and reports. The court emphasizes the importance of consistency, corroboration, and the credibility of sources.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

* **Rebuttable Presumption:** The judgment confirms that the “family membership criterion” creates a rebuttable presumption, not an automatic imposition of sanctions. Individuals can challenge their listing by providing evidence to the contrary.
* **Evidentiary Standard:** The judgment clarifies the type and quality of evidence needed to rebut the presumption of association with the Syrian regime. This provides guidance for individuals seeking to challenge their listing and for the Council in assessing such challenges.
* **Judicial Review:** The judgment underscores the importance of effective judicial review of restrictive measures, ensuring that decisions are based on a solid factual basis and that individuals have the opportunity to present their case.

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2025.Eva Kaili v European Parliament.Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents concerning alleged irregularities in the management of allowances relating to accredited parliamentary assistants – Refusal to grant access – Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings – Principles of equality of arms and the sound administration of justice.Case T-1031/23.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding access to documents held by the European Parliament. The case revolves around a request by Eva Kaili, a Member of the European Parliament, for access to documents concerning alleged irregularities in the management of allowances for accredited parliamentary assistants. The Parliament refused access, citing the need to protect court proceedings.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* It begins by outlining the background to the dispute, including the initial request for documents, the Parliament’s refusal, and the confirmatory application.
* It then details the forms of order sought by both parties (Kaili seeking annulment of the Parliament’s decision, and the Parliament seeking dismissal of the action).
* The core of the judgment addresses the substance of the case, focusing on Kaili’s plea that the Parliament infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (the regulation on public access to documents). This plea is divided into two parts: (1) that disclosure would not undermine the protection of court proceedings, and (2) that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.
* The Court analyzes whether the Parliament was justified in refusing access based on the need to protect the equality of arms and the sound administration of justice.
* Finally, the judgment concludes with a decision on costs.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

The key provision at stake is Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, which allows institutions to refuse access to documents if disclosure would undermine the protection of court proceedings or legal advice. The General Court interprets this provision strictly, emphasizing the importance of transparency and public access to documents.

The judgment clarifies that the exception for protecting court proceedings applies primarily to documents created specifically for those proceedings (like pleadings). However, it acknowledges that other documents could be covered if their disclosure would compromise the equality of arms by revealing an institution’s internal position on contentious issues.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

The most important aspects of this judgment are:

1. **Strict Interpretation of Exceptions:** The General Court reaffirms that exceptions to public access to documents must be interpreted narrowly.
2. **Equality of Arms:** The judgment provides guidance on how the principle of equality of arms applies in the context of access to documents. It clarifies that simply being required to disclose documents that might be used as evidence does not automatically undermine equality of arms. The key factor is whether the documents reveal the institution’s internal position on the legal issues in the case.
3. **Sound Administration of Justice:** The judgment clarifies that Regulation 1049/2001 and Rules of Procedure are parallel possibilities for parties to obtain documentary evidence.
4. **Burden of Proof:** The judgment clarifies that the institution cannot escape from its obligation under Regulation No 1049/2001 to disclose requested documents on the sole ground of avoiding having to defend itself against the evidence submitted by its opponent in court proceedings without taking account of the content of the documents requested and, therefore, of the fact that those documents do not contain an internal position of the institution on the contentious issues raised in the court proceedings relied on.

In this specific case, the Court found that the requested documents (administrative decisions and related files) did not reveal the Parliament’s internal position on the legal issues in the pending case. Therefore, disclosure would not undermine equality of arms or the sound administration of justice.

The General Court annulled the Parliament’s decision, ordering it to grant access to the documents and pay Kaili’s costs.

Arrêt du Tribunal (huitième chambre) du 9 juillet 2025.#Seedless Gold International, SL contre Office communautaire des variétés végétales.#Obtentions végétales – Demande d’inscription du transfert de la protection communautaire des obtentions végétales pour la variété Queen – Obligation de diligence.#Affaire T-74/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of the European Union, delivered on July 9, 2025, in Case T-74/24 between Seedless Gold International, SL (the applicant) and the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (the defendant), with Ángel Teresa Hermanos, SA intervening. The case concerns the application for registration of the transfer of Community plant variety protection for the “Queen” variety and the obligation of due diligence of CPVO.

The judgment deals with an action for annulment brought by Seedless Gold International against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, which had upheld the appeal of Ángel Teresa Hermanos and annulled the CPVO’s decision to register the transfer of the plant variety protection for the Queen variety from Ángel Teresa Hermanos to Seedless Gold International. The court dismisses the action brought by Seedless Gold International.

The main points of the judgment are:

* **Due Diligence of the CPVO:** The court confirms that the CPVO has a duty of due diligence when registering the transfer of plant variety protection. This means the CPVO must carefully examine the documents submitted to ensure they are coherent and reliable before registering the transfer.
* **Representation:** The court finds that the CPVO should have been more vigilant in this case because the same person, Mr. de Teresa Almenara, represented both the transferring party (Ángel Teresa Hermanos) and the receiving party (Seedless Gold International). This raised a potential conflict of interest.
* **Validity of Transfer:** The court emphasizes that the actual transfer of plant variety protection is governed by national law. The CPVO’s role is primarily to check the formal requirements for registration, not to assess the validity of the transfer itself under national law.
* **Power of Representation:** The court finds that the documents relied upon by the CPVO to establish Mr. de Teresa Almenara’s power to represent Ángel Teresa Hermanos were not sufficient to clearly demonstrate that he had the authority to transfer the plant variety protection.
* **Procedural Matters:** The court clarifies that the fact that a previously appointed representative’s mandate has not been formally revoked does not automatically mean that the CPVO can assume that person has the power to execute a transfer of plant variety rights.

The most important provisions of this act are those that describe the due diligence that the CPVO must take when registering the transfer of plant variety protection rights. The CPVO must carefully examine the documents submitted to it and verify the reliability of the information contained therein. In particular, the CPVO must ensure that the persons who sign the transfer documents are duly authorized to represent the parties concerned.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2025.AirPlus International GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – EU figurative mark +a – Earlier EU figurative mark A+ – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Well-known facts – Refusal of the request for oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal – Article 96(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.Case T-407/24.

This judgment concerns a dispute between AirPlus International GmbH and Alpian SA regarding the registration of an EU trade mark. AirPlus opposed Alpian’s application to register a figurative mark, arguing it was too similar to their existing EU figurative mark and could cause confusion.

The General Court upheld the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision, finding no likelihood of confusion between the two marks. The court based its decision on several factors, including the visual differences between the signs, the high level of attention of the relevant public, and the relatively low distinctiveness of AirPlus’s earlier mark. The court also rejected AirPlus’s claims that EUIPO failed to properly consider evidence and arguments, or that it improperly introduced new arguments into the case.

The key points of the judgment are:
1. **No Likelihood of Confusion:** The court agreed with the Board of Appeal that the visual differences between the marks were significant enough to prevent a likelihood of confusion, despite some phonetic and conceptual similarities.
2. **Relevant Public’s Attention:** The court emphasized the high level of attention of the relevant public (general public and business customers with financial expertise) when considering financial services, reducing the likelihood of confusion.
3. **Visual vs. Phonetic Perception:** The court supported the Board of Appeal’s finding that visual perception is more important than phonetic similarity in the financial services sector, as choices are often made based on written information.
4. **Distinctiveness of Earlier Mark:** The court agreed that AirPlus’s earlier mark had a relatively low degree of distinctiveness, which further reduced the likelihood of confusion.
5. **EUIPO’s Examination Powers:** The court clarified the extent of EUIPO’s powers to examine facts and evidence, including the ability to rely on well-known facts.
6. **Oral Proceedings:** The court upheld the Board of Appeal’s decision to refuse oral proceedings, finding that AirPlus had not demonstrated their necessity.

Arrêt du Tribunal (neuvième chambre) du 9 juillet 2025.#Ghada Mhana contre Conseil de l’Union européenne.#Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune – Mesures restrictives prises en raison de la situation en Syrie – Gel des fonds – Restrictions en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Listes des personnes, des entités et des organismes auxquels s’applique le gel des fonds et des ressources économiques et faisant l’objet de restrictions en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Maintien du nom du requérant sur les listes – Critère de l’“appartenance familiale” – Article 27, paragraphe 2, sous b), et article 28, paragraphe 2, sous b), de la décision 2013/255/PESC – Droits de la défense – Erreur d’appréciation – Proportionnalité – Droit de propriété – Responsabilité non contractuelle.#Affaire T-386/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding restrictive measures against Syria. The applicant, Ghada Mhana, is challenging the Council’s decision to maintain her name on the list of individuals subject to asset freezes and travel restrictions due to her being a member of the Makhlouf family, related to the Syrian regime.

The judgment is structured as follows:

1. **Background:** The case concerns restrictive measures adopted by the EU since 2011 against Syria and individuals associated with the violent repression of the civilian population. The applicant, Ghada Mhana, is the widow of Mohammed Makhlouf, uncle of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. She was added to the list of sanctioned individuals because she is a member of the Makhlouf family.

2. **Claims:** The applicant seeks the annulment of the Council’s decision and compensation for the damages she allegedly suffered due to the restrictive measures.

3. **Arguments:** The applicant argues that the Council violated her rights of defense and right to a fair trial, made an error in its assessment, and illegally limited her fundamental right to property.

4. **Decision:** The Court rejects all of the applicant’s claims. It finds that the Council did not violate her rights of defense, did not make an error in its assessment, and did not disproportionately limit her right to property. The Court also rejects her claim for damages.

The main provisions of the act that may be the most important for its use:

* The judgment clarifies the criteria for maintaining individuals on the EU’s sanctions list related to Syria, particularly concerning family members of those associated with the regime.
* It confirms that belonging to the Assad or Makhlouf family creates a rebuttable presumption of association with the Syrian regime, justifying restrictive measures.
* The judgment emphasizes that while the right to property is fundamental, it can be limited in the interest of general objectives recognized by the Union, such as protecting civilian populations and maintaining international peace and security.
* It also clarifies the extent to which the Council must provide the sanctioned party with the reasons for the sanctions.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2025.AirPlus International GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – EU figurative mark +a – Earlier EU figurative mark A+ – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Examination of the facts of EUIPO’s own motion – Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Well-known facts – Refusal of the request for oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal – Article 96(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.Case T-407/24.

This judgment concerns a dispute between AirPlus International GmbH and Alpian SA regarding the registration of an EU trade mark. AirPlus opposed Alpian’s application for a figurative mark, arguing it was too similar to their existing mark and would cause confusion. EUIPO’s Board of Appeal dismissed AirPlus’s appeal, finding no likelihood of confusion. AirPlus then challenged this decision before the General Court.

The General Court upheld the Board of Appeal’s decision, dismissing AirPlus’s action. The court addressed three main arguments raised by AirPlus: (1) infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 (likelihood of confusion), (2) infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of that regulation (failure to consider arguments and evidence), and (3) infringement of Article 96(1) of that regulation (refusal of oral proceedings). The court found no merit in any of these arguments.

The most important provisions relate to the assessment of likelihood of confusion (Article 8(1)(b)), the scope of EUIPO’s examination (Articles 94(1) and 95(1)), and the right to oral proceedings (Article 96(1)). The court emphasized that the assessment of likelihood of confusion must be global, considering all relevant factors, and that EUIPO is entitled to rely on well-known facts. The court also confirmed that the Board of Appeal has discretion to decide whether oral proceedings are necessary.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2025.Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Three-dimensional EU trade mark – Shape of a cube with faces having a grid structure and differentiated by their colours – Absolute ground for invalidity – Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result – Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.Case T-1172/23.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an action brought by Spin Master Toys UK Ltd against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case concerns the validity of a three-dimensional EU trade mark owned by Spin Master, representing the shape of a cube with a grid structure and differentiated colors on its faces. Verdes Innovations SA had filed an application for a declaration of invalidity of this trade mark.

The General Court dismissed Spin Master’s action, upholding the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision that the trade mark was invalid. The court agreed that the trade mark consisted exclusively of the shape of goods necessary to obtain a technical result, which is a ground for invalidity under Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).

Here are the main points:

* **Essence of the Act:** The judgment confirms the invalidity of Spin Master’s three-dimensional EU trade mark for a cube-shaped puzzle with colored faces and a grid structure. The court found that the shape of the cube, the grid structure, and the color differentiation were all essential characteristics necessary to achieve a technical result, namely the puzzle’s function. Therefore, the trade mark could not be registered due to Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009.
* **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment addresses Spin Master’s claim that the Board of Appeal incorrectly applied Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009.
* The court examines whether the essential characteristics of the trade mark (cube shape, grid structure, and color differentiation) are necessary to obtain a technical result.
* It analyzes whether the specific arrangement of colors is an essential characteristic and whether color can be considered part of the “shape” of the goods.
* The court also considers whether the technical result of the puzzle is relevant to “jigsaw puzzles,” as the trade mark covered goods in Class 28, including jigsaw puzzles.
* **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009, particularly regarding three-dimensional trade marks and the concept of “shape.”
* It emphasizes that the essential characteristics of a shape must be assessed in light of the technical function of the actual goods represented.
* The court confirms that the presence of colors in a three-dimensional mark does not automatically exclude it from the scope of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) if the colors are functional.
* It also clarifies that the existence of alternative shapes or designs that could achieve the same technical result does not preclude the application of Article 7(1)(e)(ii).

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2025.Sumol + Compal Marcas, S. A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative trade mark FIZI AQUA – Earlier national word mark FRIZE – Earlier national figurative mark FrizE – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-291/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The court ruled that there is no likelihood of confusion between the figurative trade mark “FIZI AQUA” applied for by Krynica Vitamin S.A. and the earlier Portuguese word mark “FRIZE” and figurative mark “FrizE” owned by Sumol + Compal Marcas, S.A. The court upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which had dismissed the opposition filed by Sumol + Compal Marcas, S.A. against the registration of the “FIZI AQUA” mark.

The judgment is structured as follows:
1. It starts with the background of the dispute, detailing the trade mark application, the opposition filed, and the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.
2. It outlines the forms of order sought by the applicant (Sumol + Compal Marcas, S.A.) and the defendant (EUIPO).
3. It presents the legal basis for the decision, focusing on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 concerning the likelihood of confusion between trade marks.
4. The court then proceeds with a detailed analysis, comparing the marks in terms of visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity. It assesses the dominant and distinctive elements of the marks.
5. Finally, the court provides a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, considering all relevant factors and concluding that no such likelihood exists.

The main provisions of the act are related to the assessment of likelihood of confusion:
* The court emphasizes that the assessment must be global, considering the perception of the relevant public and all relevant factors.
* It highlights the importance of the overall impression given by the marks, considering their distinctive and dominant elements.
* The court acknowledges the interdependence between the similarity of the marks and the similarity of the goods or services covered.
* It details how visual, phonetic, and conceptual comparisons should be conducted.
* The court confirms that even with identical goods, a likelihood of confusion can be ruled out if the marks are sufficiently different.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2025.Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Three-dimensional EU trade mark – Shape of a cube with faces having a grid structure and differentiated by their colours – Absolute ground for invalidity – Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result – Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.Case T-1173/23.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an action brought by Spin Master Toys UK Ltd against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case concerns the validity of a three-dimensional EU trade mark owned by Seven Towns Ltd (predecessor to Spin Master), representing the shape of a cube with a grid structure and differentiated colors on its faces, similar to a Rubik’s Cube. Verdes Innovations SA had filed an application for a declaration of invalidity of this trade mark.

The General Court dismissed Spin Master’s action, upholding the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision that the trade mark was invalid. The court agreed that the trade mark consisted exclusively of a shape necessary to obtain a technical result, thus falling under the prohibition of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

* The judgment addresses whether the three-dimensional shape of a cube with colored faces and a grid structure can be registered as an EU trade mark.
* It examines the essential characteristics of the trade mark, specifically the cube shape, the grid structure, and the colors on the faces.
* The court analyzes whether these characteristics are necessary to achieve a technical result, namely the functionality of the puzzle.
* The judgment refers to previous cases, including the Rubik’s Cube case involving Simba Toys, to establish legal precedents.
* It considers arguments related to the distinctiveness of the colors and their arrangement, as well as the creative process behind the Rubik’s Cube design.

**Main Provisions and Important Aspects:**

* **Essential Characteristics:** The court identifies the essential characteristics of the contested mark as the cube shape, the grid structure, and the differentiation of the small squares on each face of the cube by means of six basic colors, making it possible to distinguish them and producing a contrasting effect between them.
* **Technical Functionality:** The court finds that these essential characteristics are necessary to obtain a technical result, namely the functionality of the puzzle. The colors enable the user to distinguish the different faces of the cube, which is essential for solving the puzzle.
* **Exclusion of Monopoly:** The judgment emphasizes that trade mark law should not grant a monopoly on technical solutions or functional characteristics of a product.
* **Shape vs. Color:** The court clarifies that the addition of colors to a functional shape does not necessarily preclude the shape from being considered as consisting exclusively of the shape of goods, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009. The key is whether the colors are an essential characteristic of the mark and necessary to achieve a technical result.
* **Jigsaw Puzzles:** The court also considers whether the shape is functional for “jigsaw puzzles,” interpreting this term broadly to include three-dimensional puzzles that can be dismantled and reassembled.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2025.Guangzhou Wanglaoji Grand Health Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Figurative mark representing three Chinese characters – Absolute ground for invalidity – Bad faith – Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).Case T-128/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an application for annulment of a decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case concerns the validity of an EU trade mark consisting of three Chinese characters, specifically whether the trade mark was registered in bad faith. The court ultimately dismisses the action, upholding the EUIPO’s decision that the trade mark registration was not made in bad faith.

The judgment is structured as follows:

1. **Background to the dispute:** This section outlines the history of the case, including the initial trade mark application, the subsequent application for a declaration of invalidity, and the decisions of the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO.
2. **Forms of order sought:** This section specifies the orders sought by the applicant (Guangzhou Wanglaoji Grand Health Co. Ltd), EUIPO, and the intervener (Multi Access Ltd).
3. **Law:** This section discusses the applicable law, noting that the substantive law is Regulation No. 207/2009, while the procedural law is Regulation 2017/1001.
4. **Admissibility of certain evidence submitted by the applicant:** The court rules on the admissibility of new evidence submitted by the applicant, deeming some inadmissible because it was not presented during the proceedings before the EUIPO.
5. **Merits of the action:** This is the core of the judgment, where the court addresses the applicant’s pleas.
* **Plea alleging infringement of Article 22(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 27(2) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625, read in conjunction with Article 71(1) of Regulation 2017/1001:** The applicant argues that the Board of Appeal erred by limiting its examination to the claim relating to the “true owner of the mark” and failing to analyze the claim of “repetitive conduct.” The court rejects this plea, finding that the applicant did not adequately raise the “repetitive conduct” claim in its statement of grounds of appeal.
* **Plea alleging infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009:** This plea is divided into two parts:
* **Errors in the examination of the claim relating to the “true owner of the mark”:** The applicant argues that the Board of Appeal too restrictively interpreted Article 52(1)(b) and erred in its assessment of the intervener’s bad faith. The court rejects these arguments, finding that the Board of Appeal appropriately considered all relevant factors and that the applicant failed to prove bad faith.
* **Errors in the examination of the claim of “repetitive conduct”:** The applicant argues that the Board of Appeal failed to consider the fact that the contested trade mark was filed shortly before the expiry of a previous similar trade mark. The court rejects this argument, finding that the applicant did not adequately raise this issue before the Board of Appeal and that the intervener’s actions could be seen as a legitimate modernization of the earlier trade mark.
6. **Costs:** The court orders the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

The most important provisions of the act are those related to the assessment of bad faith in trade mark registration (Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009). The court emphasizes that bad faith requires a dishonest intention and that any claim of bad faith must be assessed based on all relevant factual circumstances. The judgment also clarifies that the “first to file” principle can be applied unless bad faith is demonstrated. The court also clarifies the admissibility of evidence before it, stating that it will not consider evidence that was not presented to the Board of Appeal.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2025.Target Brands, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark representing three red and white concentric circles – Absolute ground for invalidity – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – Right to be heard – Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.Case T-347/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding a dispute over an EU trade mark. Target Brands, Inc. sought to annul a decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) that declared their figurative mark, consisting of three red and white concentric circles, invalid. The court ultimately dismissed Target Brands’ action, upholding EUIPO’s decision that the mark lacked distinctive character and therefore could not be protected as a trade mark.

The judgment is structured as follows:

* It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the initial application for the declaration of invalidity by Polipol Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG, the decision of the Cancellation Division, and the subsequent appeal to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.
* It then presents the forms of order sought by the parties involved, namely Target Brands, EUIPO and Polipol Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. KG.
* The core of the judgment addresses the two pleas in law raised by Target Brands: (1) a failure to state reasons and infringement of the right to be heard, based on Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, and (2) infringement of Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation, arguing that the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the contested mark lacked distinctive character.
* The court systematically rejects both pleas, providing detailed reasoning for each. It finds that EUIPO adequately stated the reasons for its decision and did not infringe on Target Brands’ right to be heard. Furthermore, the court agrees with EUIPO’s assessment that the mark lacks distinctive character because it consists of simple geometric shapes that are commonly used and would not be perceived by the relevant public as an indication of commercial origin.
* Finally, the judgment addresses the issue of costs, ordering Target Brands to pay the costs of the proceedings.

The most important provisions of the act for its use are:

* **Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001**: This article states that trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character shall not be registered. The court’s interpretation and application of this article are central to the judgment.
* **Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001**: This article outlines the obligation to state reasons for EUIPO decisions and the right of parties to be heard. The court’s analysis of whether EUIPO complied with these requirements is a key aspect of the judgment.
* **Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001**: This article states that an EU trade mark is to be declared invalid on application to EUIPO, where it has been registered contrary to the provisions of Article 7 of that regulation.

Arrêt du Tribunal (neuvième chambre) du 9 juillet 2025.#Kinda Makhlouf contre Conseil de l’Union européenne.#Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune – Mesures restrictives prises en raison de la situation en Syrie – Gel des fonds – Restrictions en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Listes des personnes, des entités et des organismes auxquels s’applique le gel des fonds et des ressources économiques et faisant l’objet de restrictions en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Maintien du nom du requérant sur les listes – Critère de l’“appartenance familiale” – Article 27, paragraphe 2, sous b), et article 28, paragraphe 2, sous b), de la décision 2013/255/PESC – Droits de la défense – Erreur d’appréciation – Proportionnalité – Droit de propriété – Liberté de circuler et de séjourner dans les États membres – Droit à la vie familiale – Responsabilité non contractuelle.#Affaire T-388/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding restrictive measures against Syria.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment concerns a challenge by Kinda Makhlouf against the Council of the European Union’s decision to maintain her name on the list of individuals subject to restrictive measures (asset freeze and travel restrictions) due to the situation in Syria. The General Court dismisses Makhlouf’s claims, upholding the Council’s decision. The court finds that the Council did not violate Makhlouf’s rights of defense, did not commit an error of assessment in maintaining her on the list, and did not disproportionately limit her fundamental rights.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **Background:** It outlines the history of the dispute, including the initial listing of Makhlouf, the reasons for it (family ties to the Makhlouf family, which is considered close to the Syrian regime), and the subsequent decisions to maintain her on the list.
* **Arguments:** It summarizes the arguments made by Makhlouf, who claims violations of her rights of defense, errors of assessment by the Council, and disproportionate limitations on her fundamental rights (right to property, right to family life).
* **Court’s Reasoning:** The court systematically addresses each of Makhlouf’s arguments, rejecting them. Key points include:
* **Rights of Defense:** The court finds that while Makhlouf was not heard before the adoption of the acts, the Council respected her rights of defense because the reasons for maintaining her on the list were the same as before, and she was given the opportunity to challenge the decision.
* **Error of Assessment:** The court upholds the Council’s assessment that Makhlouf’s family ties justify the restrictive measures. It emphasizes that the “family membership” criterion is an autonomous and sufficient basis for imposing sanctions. Makhlouf did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that she is linked to the Syrian regime.
* **Fundamental Rights:** The court finds that the restrictive measures, while limiting Makhlouf’s right to property and family life, are proportionate and justified by the objective of protecting the civilian population in Syria.
* **Decision:** The court dismisses Makhlouf’s action in its entirety.

**Main Provisions Important for Use:**

* **Criterion of “Family Membership”:** The judgment confirms that being a member of the Assad or Makhlouf family is, in itself, a sufficient reason for imposing restrictive measures, unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary.
* **Rebuttable Presumption:** The presumption of a link to the Syrian regime based on family ties is rebuttable, meaning that individuals can challenge the measures if they provide sufficient evidence that they are not linked to the regime, do not exert influence on it, or are not associated with a risk of circumvention of the sanctions.
* **Proportionality:** The judgment reiterates that restrictive measures must be proportionate and not go beyond what is necessary to achieve their objectives. However, it also acknowledges the difficulty of obtaining precise evidence in a country like Syria and the need to protect civilian populations.
* **Periodic Review:** The court emphasizes that restrictive measures are temporary and subject to periodic review by the Council.

Arrêt du Tribunal (neuvième chambre) du 9 juillet 2025.#Sara Makhlouf contre Conseil de l’Union européenne.#Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune – Mesures restrictives prises en raison de la situation en Syrie – Gel des fonds – Restrictions en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Listes des personnes, des entités et des organismes auxquels s’applique le gel des fonds et des ressources économiques et faisant l’objet de restrictions en matière d’admission sur le territoire des États membres – Maintien du nom du requérant sur les listes – Critère de l’“appartenance familiale” – Article 27, paragraphe 2, sous b), et article 28, paragraphe 2, sous b), de la décision 2013/255/PESC – Droits de la défense – Erreur d’appréciation – Proportionnalité – Droit de propriété – Responsabilité non contractuelle.#Affaire T-387/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of the European Union, delivered on July 9, 2025, in the case T-387/24, Sara Makhlouf v. Council of the European Union. The case concerns restrictive measures taken against Syria, specifically the freezing of funds and restrictions on admission to EU member states. The applicant, Sara Makhlouf, challenged the Council’s decision to maintain her name on the lists of individuals subject to these measures.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses Sara Makhlouf’s challenge to the Council’s Decision (CFSP) 2024/1510 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1517, which maintained her name on the EU’s sanctions list related to Syria. These acts implement Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, respectively. The applicant sought the annulment of these acts as they pertain to her and compensation for damages allegedly suffered due to their adoption.

The judgment is structured as follows:

1. **Background:** The judgment outlines the history of the dispute, including the initial listing of the applicant’s name and subsequent decisions to maintain it. It explains that the applicant is the daughter of Mohammed Makhlouf, uncle of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. The EU has imposed restrictive measures since 2011 against Syria and individuals responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population. The judgment refers to the “family membership criterion” which allows to impose restrictive measures to members of Assad and Makhlouf families.
2. **Claims of the Parties:** It summarizes the arguments made by Sara Makhlouf and the Council of the European Union. The applicant argued that the acts should be annulled and that she should receive compensation for the moral prejudice she suffered. The Council argued that the action should be dismissed and the applicant should pay the costs.
3. **Legal Analysis:** The Court addresses the applicant’s claims, which include:

* Violation of the rights of defense and the right to a fair trial.
* Error of assessment by the Council.
* Illegal limitation of her fundamental right to property.

The Court rejects all of the applicant’s arguments and dismisses the action in its entirety.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

The key provisions at issue are those related to the restrictive measures against Syria, particularly the criteria for listing individuals and entities subject to sanctions. The “family membership criterion,” introduced by Decision 2015/1836, allows for sanctions against members of the Assad and Makhlouf families.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

For practical purposes, the most important provisions are those that define the criteria for listing individuals and entities subject to sanctions. The judgment clarifies that the “family membership criterion” is an objective and autonomous criterion, sufficient in itself to justify the adoption of restrictive measures against members of the Makhlouf family. However, this criterion establishes a rebuttable presumption of a link with the Syrian regime, meaning that individuals can challenge their listing if they provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they are not linked to the regime, do not exert influence on it, or are not associated with a real risk of circumvention of the restrictive measures.

Judgment of the General Court (Chamber giving preliminary rulings) of 9 July 2025.MK v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Excise duties – Directive 2008/118/EC – Article 7 – Chargeability of excise duty – Release for consumption – Energy products – Whether excise duty arises – Fictitious supply of excise goods appearing on falsified invoices.Case T-534/24.

This judgment from the General Court addresses a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Articles 7 and 8 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC, which deals with the general arrangements for excise duty. The case originates from a dispute in Croatia between MK, a natural person, and the Croatian Ministry of Finance regarding the recovery of excise duty. The core issue revolves around whether excise duty can be levied on energy products based on falsified invoices, where no actual supply of goods occurred.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

1. **Introduction:** Sets the stage by referencing the request for a preliminary ruling and the relevant articles of Directive 2008/118/EC.
2. **Legal Framework:**
* **European Union Law:** Focuses on Articles 7 and 8 of Directive 2008/118/EC, defining when excise duty becomes chargeable (“release for consumption”) and who is liable to pay it.
* **Croatian Law:** Outlines the relevant articles from the Law on Excise Duty, particularly those concerning the calculation of excise duty, unlawful conduct, and abuse of rights related to excise goods.
3. **Main Proceedings and the Question Referred:** Details the factual background of the case, including the tax inspection, falsified invoices, and the imposition of excise duty on MK. It then presents the specific question referred to the Court by the Upravni sud u Osijeku (Administrative Court, Osijek).
4. **Consideration of the Question Referred:** This section provides the Court’s analysis and interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 2008/118/EC. It emphasizes the importance of a uniform interpretation of “release for consumption” across Member States and concludes that a fictitious supply based on falsified invoices does not constitute a “release for consumption” as defined by the Directive.
5. **Costs:** Allocates the responsibility for costs incurred in the proceedings.
6. **Ruling:** States the Court’s decision, answering the question referred by the national court.

**Key Provisions and Changes:**

* The judgment centers on the interpretation of “release for consumption” as defined in Article 7(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC. It clarifies that this definition is exhaustive and that Member States cannot impose excise duty on situations that fall outside of it.
* The judgment reinforces the principle that excise duty is linked to the actual release of goods for consumption and not to fictitious transactions or accounting irregularities.

**Main Provisions Important for Use:**

* **Article 7 of Directive 2008/118/EC:** This article is crucial as it defines the conditions under which excise duty becomes chargeable. The judgment emphasizes that the concept of “release for consumption” must be interpreted uniformly across all Member States.
* The judgment’s interpretation of Article 7 clarifies that excise duty cannot be imposed on fictitious supplies of excise goods appearing on falsified invoices. This has significant implications for businesses and individuals who may be subject to excise duty assessments based on similar circumstances.

Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2025.Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Three-dimensional EU trade mark – Shape of a cube with faces having a grid structure and differentiated by their colours – Absolute ground for invalidity – Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result – Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.Case T-1171/23.

This is the Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of the European Union, dated 9 July 2025, in Case T-1171/23, *Spin Master Toys UK Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) concerning the validity of a three-dimensional EU trade mark. The trade mark in question is for the shape of a cube with a grid structure on its faces, differentiated by colors, similar to a Rubik’s Cube.

The case revolves around an application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU trade mark filed by Verdes Innovations SA against Spin Master Toys UK Ltd. The EUIPO’s Board of Appeal dismissed Spin Master’s appeal, agreeing that the trade mark should be invalidated. The core issue is whether the trade mark consists exclusively of a shape necessary to obtain a technical result, which is a ground for invalidity under Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

The General Court dismisses the action brought by Spin Master, upholding the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision. The court finds that the essential characteristics of the contested mark (cube shape, grid structure, and color differentiation) are functional and necessary to achieve a technical result. The court considers that the trade mark consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result.