Review of the EU legislation for 15/01/2026

Review of Legal Acts

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/50

This regulation updates the data requirements for electronic documents used in the movement of excise goods. It amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1636, specifically Annex I, to align with changes in the computerised system for excise duty control. The updates address the export of excise goods and movements of goods already released for consumption within the EU. Key changes include modifications to data elements in electronic administrative documents (e-AD) and electronic simplified administrative documents (e-SAD). These adjustments ensure accurate data collection and exchange, reflecting the nature and destination of excise goods.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/117

This regulation updates the IOTC Transhipment Declaration form, found in Annex 7 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2343. It incorporates new requirements from the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) Resolutions 22/02 and 25/05. The updated form requires the inclusion of the IMO number for both the carrier and fishing vessels involved in transhipment activities. It also specifies the use of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) for indicating the time and date of transhipment. The goal is to improve monitoring and control of transhipment to combat illegal fishing.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/51

This regulation revises electronic messages used for exchanging data on economic operators and tax warehouses in the excise duty sector. It amends Annex I of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 612/2013 to reflect the expansion of the computerised system for monitoring excise goods. The updates accommodate exports and duty-paid movements. It details data structures and requirements, affecting how Member States and operators format and exchange excise duty-related information.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/89

This regulation denies the renewal of authorisation for smoke flavouring extract 2b0001 as a feed additive for dogs and cats, and it repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1076/2014. Based on safety concerns raised by EFSA, the regulation mandates the withdrawal of the additive and products containing it from the market, setting deadlines for the removal of existing stocks. Stocks of the additive and premixtures containing it must be withdrawn by 4 May 2026. Feed materials and compound feed produced with the additive before 4 May 2026 must be withdrawn by 4 August 2026.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/90

This regulation authorises the use of L-arginine, produced with *Corynebacterium glutamicum* KCCM 80393, as a feed additive for all animal species. It is classified as a nutritional additive, specifically an amino acid. The regulation establishes conditions for its use, including requirements for rumen protection in ruminants and labelling specifications to avoid nutritional imbalances.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/120

This regulation sets the representative prices, import duties, and additional import duties applicable to molasses in the sugar sector, effective January 15, 2026. It repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2657 and provides updated financial figures for CN codes 1703 10 00 and 1703 90 00, which is cane and beet molasses. For example, the representative price for cane molasses is set at EUR 22,47 per 100 kg with an import duty of EUR 0.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/124

This regulation amends Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 regarding restrictive measures against Russia. The key change is an adjustment to the price cap for Russian crude oil. Annex XXVIII of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 is updated, setting the new price at 44,1 USD per barrel from 1 February 2026, down from 47,6 USD per barrel. A transitional period until 16 April 2026 is provided for contracts concluded before 1 February 2026.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/85

This regulation authorises the use of tartrazine as a sensory feed additive for fishing baits used to catch freshwater food-producing finfish. It specifies that tartrazine falls under the category of ‘sensory additives’ and is to be used as a colourant. It is not for aquaculture feed, and sets a maximum content level of 30 mg/kg of complementary feed. Operators must follow personal protective measures. The authorisation period ends on 4 February 2036.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/91

This regulation renews the authorisation of 6-phytase produced with Trichoderma reesei CBS 126897 as a feed additive for poultry, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, and sows. It also extends its use to ornamental birds, suckling piglets, and minor porcine species. It repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) No 292/2014.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/92

This regulation renews the authorization of Bacillus velezensis ATCC PTA-6737 as a feed additive for laying hens and minor poultry species, and authorizes its use for other birds kept for egg production or breeding. It expands the application of the additive to a broader range of poultry and also repeals the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1020.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/111

This regulation amends Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404, concerning the lists of third countries authorised for entry into the Union of poultry, germinal products of poultry, and fresh meat of poultry and game birds. It addresses recent avian influenza outbreaks in Canada, the UK, and the US, and suspends or re-authorizes imports from specific affected zones.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/112

This regulation establishes a fisheries closure for undulate ray in Union waters of ICES area 8 for Spanish vessels, due to the exhaustion of Spain’s quota for undulate ray. Fishing is prohibited, but processing and landing of catches taken before the closure date is allowed. Intended catches must be retained, recorded, landed, and counted against quotas.

Judgment – Case Information Not Provided, regarding “Leone” trademark

This judgment concerns a dispute over the validity of the EU trade mark “Leone” for ice cream. The General Court sided with Lisa Leone, Giorgio Leone, and Leone & Leone OG. The court annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, clarifying the interpretation of Article 60(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 regarding the “right to a name.” The judgment confirms that this right can extend to commercial uses of a name, not just personal attributes.

Judgment – Case T-403/24, *Issam Anbouba v Council of the European Union*

The General Court upheld sanctions imposed on Mr. Issam Anbouba. The Tribunal rejected Mr. Anbouba’s claims. Judgment clarifies the standard of proof required for maintaining individuals on sanctions lists, the need for a sufficiently solid factual basis and the need for the Council to provide specific and concrete reasons for imposing restrictive measures. The legality of an act is assessed based on the facts and laws at the time of its adoption.

Judgment – Case Information Not Provided, regarding “Rebell” trademark

The General Court dismissed an appeal against the EUIPO’s decision to partially revoke the EU trademark “Rebell.” While revoking the trademark for certain goods, the Court maintained it for “cheese” and “cheese products.” The judgement clarifies the interpretation and application of Article 72(6) and Article 106(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, Article 72(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625, Article 63(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 and Article 60(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625.

Judgment – Case Information Not Provided, hinged window trademark

The General Court upheld the EUIPO’s rejection of a trademark application for the movement of a hinged window. The rejection was based on Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which prohibits trademarks that consist exclusively of a characteristic necessary to obtain a technical result. The court found that the movement of the window was a technical function and essential to the product.

Judgment – Cases T-619/24 and T-621/24, “Kimkom” and “Kimsum” trademarks

In a trademark dispute between Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group LLC and Kamstar GmbH, the General Court partially annulled the EUIPO’s decision. Kimpton successfully opposed the registration of “Kimkom” and “Kimsum” for “elderly care facilities” due to the likelihood of confusion with their earlier trademark, “KIMPTON”. The key provision is Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.

Judgment – Case Information Not Provided, “DESMOMED” and “DERMOMED” trademarks

The General Court ruled that there was no likelihood of confusion between the figurative mark DESMOMED and the earlier national word mark DERMOMED. The decision hinged on the court’s assessment that the goods at issue were not similar, and the court sided with the EUIPO. The court based its judgement on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2001.

Judgment – Case Information Not Provided, “BioTechUSA” trademark

The General Court partially annulled an EUIPO decision regarding the trademark “BioTechUSA”. While the court agreed with the EUIPO that the trademark was descriptive for most goods and services, it disagreed regarding “portable medicine boxes, filled.” The court emphasized that a trademark is descriptive if it directly and concretely describes the characteristics of the goods/services to the relevant public.

Judgment – Case T-176/24, *Feras Al Akhras v Council of the European Union*

The General Court dismissed Mr. Al Akhras’s action. The Court found that even if the Council did not directly communicate the sanctions to Mr. Al Akhras, this did not invalidate the sanctions themselves. Sanctions may be imposed on individuals based on their family ties. However, this is a rebuttable presumption, and individuals can challenge the sanctions by providing evidence that they are not associated with the regime. The court also considers Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2024/380, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/362, Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/1510 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1517.

Judgment – Case Information Not Provided, regarding “DESMOMED” and “DERMOMED” trademarks

The General Court sided with EUIPO and the applicants, finding no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks DESMOMED and DERMOMED. This decision hinged on the court’s assessment that the goods covered by the respective marks were dissimilar, negating the likelihood of consumer confusion. The most important provision in this judgment is the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/2001.

Judgment – Case Information Not Provided, public procurement

The General Court dismissed Engie Energie Services case. The judgement reinforces the importance of adhering to the minimum requirements set out in tender documents, as stipulated by Article 167(1) and 168(6) of the Financial Regulation.

Judgment – Case Information Not Provided, Euro Asia Cargo Private Ltd sanctions

The court rejected the application for annulment of Council Decisions and Council Regulations, which included Euro Asia Cargo Private Ltd on lists of entities subject to prohibitions related to dual-use goods and technology. The court found no error of assessment, infringement of the freedom to conduct a business, or breach of the right to good administration. The court considered evidence presented by the Council, including the applicant’s role in facilitating shipments of electronic components to Russia.

Judgment – Case Information Not Provided, “CRYPTOSTAMP” trademark

The court upholds the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to reject the trademark application based on the grounds that the term is descriptive and lacks distinctive character. The main provisions of the act are related to the articles of Regulation 2017/1001.

Judgment – Case Information Not Provided, EU design for a box with a lid

The judgment concerns a challenge to a design and assesses the informed user’s perception, the designer’s degree of freedom, and compares the overall impressions of the contested design with those of earlier designs.

Judgment – Case Information Not Provided, toy building blocks design

The General Court upheld the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, which had declared Lego’s design invalid due to a lack of individual character. The court agreed that the Lego design did not produce a different overall impression on an informed user compared to an earlier design. The most important provision of the act for its use is Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002.

Renewed Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India

This notice announces the entry into force of the renewed agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India. The renewal came into effect on November 27, 2025, with the renewal being effective from May 17, 2025, ensuring the continuation of scientific and technological cooperation between the EU and India.

Review of each of legal acts published today:

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/50 of 12 November 2025 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1636 as regards the data of the documents exchanged in the context of movement of excise goods

This is an analysis of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/50.

**Essence of the Act:**

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/50 amends Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1636, focusing on the data requirements for documents exchanged during the movement of excise goods. The changes are necessitated by modifications to the computerised system used for excise duty control, particularly concerning the export of excise goods and the movement of goods already released for consumption in one Member State to another for commercial purposes. The regulation aims to correct inconsistencies and update the structure and content of administrative documents to reflect these changes. It ensures uniform completion of formalities and facilitates the supervision of excise goods movements.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex.

* **Article 1** stipulates that Annex I of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1636 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this regulation. The Annex contains detailed tables outlining the structure and content of electronic messages used for movements of excise goods under suspension of excise duty or those already released for consumption. These tables specify data groups, data elements, their characteristics (required, optional, conditional, dependent), and provide explanations for completing the messages.
* **Article 2** specifies the entry into force and application date of the regulation. It comes into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and applies from 12 February 2026.

The main changes involve updates to data elements within the electronic administrative documents (e-AD) and electronic simplified administrative documents (e-SAD) used for excise goods movements. These updates address the inclusion of export movements and movements of goods already released for consumption. The amendments ensure that the data collected and exchanged accurately reflect the nature and destination of the excise goods.

**Main Provisions Important for Use:**

* The updated Annex I provides detailed guidance on the data elements required for electronic messages related to excise goods movements. Businesses involved in the movement of excise goods need to carefully review these tables to ensure compliance.
* The regulation distinguishes between different types of movements (e.g., to tax warehouses, registered consignees, for export) and specifies the data required for each. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for correctly completing the electronic documents.
* The regulation includes specific provisions for movements involving exports, including the requirement to provide the EORI number of the person responsible for lodging the export declaration.
* The regulation specifies conditions under which certain data elements are required, optional, or conditional, depending on the nature of the movement and the destination of the goods.
* The application date of 12 February 2026, provides a timeline for Member States and businesses to adapt their systems and procedures to comply with the new requirements.
* The tables in Annex I provide detailed information on the structure and content of electronic messages, including data types, lengths, and code lists. This information is essential for IT developers and system administrators responsible for implementing the changes in the computerised system.
* The regulation includes provisions for cancellation of e-ADs, change of destination, splitting of consignment, and reporting of receipt/export. Each of these processes has specific data requirements that must be followed.
* The regulation includes provisions for customs rejection of electronic administrative documents and export declaration invalidation notification.
* The regulation includes provisions for wine products included in Part XII of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.
* The regulation includes provisions for independent small producers of alcoholic beverages for excise duty purposes.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/117 of 3 November 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2022/2343 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down management, conservation and control measures applicable in the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) Area of Competence, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1936/2001, (EC) No 1984/2003 and (EC) No 520/2007

This Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/117 amends Regulation (EU) 2022/2343, which concerns management, conservation, and control measures within the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) Area of Competence. The amendment incorporates new requirements from IOTC Resolutions 22/02 and 25/05 regarding transhipment by large-scale fishing vessels, specifically the declaration of IMO numbers for both carrier and fishing vessels and the use of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) for transhipment time.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that Annex 7 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2343, which contains the IOTC Transhipment Declaration form, is replaced by the new form provided in the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 states that the regulation will enter into force three days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex provides the updated IOTC Transhipment Declaration form, which includes fields for the IMO number of both the carrier and fishing vessels and specifies the use of UTC for indicating the time and date of transhipment.

The most important provision of this regulation is the updated Annex 7, which introduces a revised IOTC Transhipment Declaration form. This new form mandates the inclusion of the IMO number for both the carrier and fishing vessels involved in transhipment activities. Additionally, it explicitly requires the use of UTC when specifying the time and date of the transhipment. These changes aim to enhance the monitoring and control of transhipment activities within the IOTC Area of Competence, contributing to the fight against illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/51 of 11 December 2025 amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 612/2013 as regards the structure of messages relating to data of economic operators and tax warehouses, related statistics and reporting in the field of excise duties exchanged pursuant to Council Regulation (EU) No 389/2012

This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/51 amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 612/2013.

This regulation revises the structure of electronic messages used for exchanging data on economic operators, tax warehouses, and related statistics in the field of excise duties. These exchanges are carried out according to Council Regulation (EU) No 389/2012, which deals with administrative cooperation in excise duties. The changes are necessary due to the expansion of the computerised system for monitoring excise goods movements, as introduced by Council Directive (EU) 2020/262. The regulation aims to correct inconsistencies in the computerised system that have arisen from including movements of excise goods exported outside the Union and duty-paid movements.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex.
– Article 1 stipulates that Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 612/2013 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
– Article 2 defines the entry into force and the date of application of the regulation.
The annex contains the revised “ANNEX I ELECTRONIC MESSAGES USED FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE REGISTER OF ECONOMIC OPERATORS EXPLANATORY NOTES”. It details the structure of electronic messages, including data groups, subgroups, and elements, used for the computerised system. It specifies whether data insertion is required, optional, conditional, or dependent, and provides conditions for data use, explanations for message completion, and data type and length specifications.

The most important provisions of this regulation are the revised data structures and requirements for electronic messages, as detailed in the new Annex I. These changes affect how Member States and economic operators must format and exchange information related to excise duties, particularly concerning the registration and management of economic operators and tax warehouses. The regulation also introduces new codes and modifies existing ones to accommodate the extended scope of the computerised system, including duty-paid movements and exports.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/89 of 14 January 2026 concerning the denial of the renewal of the authorisation of a preparation containing a smoke flavouring extract-2b0001 as a feed additive for dogs and cats and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1076/2014

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/89 concerns the denial of the renewal of the authorisation for a specific smoke flavouring extract, labelled 2b0001, as a feed additive for dogs and cats. The regulation also repeals the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1076/2014, which had authorised the use of this additive. The decision is based on an assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which raised concerns about the safety of the additive due to potential genotoxicity and discrepancies in analytical data.

The regulation consists of four articles. Article 1 formally denies the renewal of the authorisation for the smoke flavouring extract-2b0001 as a feed additive for dogs and cats. Article 2 repeals the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1076/2014, which had authorised the additive. Article 3 outlines the withdrawal from the market of the additive and products containing it, setting deadlines for the removal of existing stocks. Article 4 states that the regulation will enter into force twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The most important provisions for businesses and operators in the pet food industry are those concerning the withdrawal of the additive and related products from the market. Specifically, existing stocks of the additive and premixtures containing it must be withdrawn by 4 May 2026. Feed materials and compound feed produced with the additive before 4 May 2026 must be withdrawn by 4 August 2026. These deadlines are crucial for ensuring compliance and avoiding potential penalties.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/90 of 14 January 2026 concerning the authorisation of L-arginine produced with Corynebacterium glutamicum KCCM 80393 as a feed additive for all animal species

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/90 authorises the use of L-arginine produced with *Corynebacterium glutamicum* KCCM 80393 as a feed additive for all animal species. The additive is classified as a nutritional additive, specifically an amino acid, its salts, and analogues. The regulation establishes conditions for its use, including requirements for rumen protection in ruminants and labelling specifications to avoid nutritional imbalances.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 sanctions the use of the substance specified in the Annex as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex. Article 2 states that the regulation enters into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex specifies the identification number, name, composition, analytical method, animal species, and other provisions for the feed additive. It also sets the end of the authorization period. There are no previous versions to compare with.

The most important provisions for users include the requirement for rumen protection when feeding L-arginine to ruminants, the need to indicate storage conditions and stability in water for drinking, and the obligation to consider all essential and conditionally essential amino acids to avoid nutritional imbalances, especially when supplementing via drinking water. Furthermore, feed business operators must establish operational procedures and organizational measures to address potential risks resulting from its use, including the use of personal protective equipment where risks cannot be eliminated.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/120 of 13 January 2026 fixing the representative prices, import duties and additional import duties applicable to molasses in the sugar sector from 15 January 2026

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/120 sets out the representative prices, import duties, and additional import duties applicable to molasses in the sugar sector for the period starting from January 15, 2026. It aims to ensure fair access to the EU market for imported molasses by establishing updated financial figures for specific CN codes related to molasses. The regulation repeals the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2657, updating the applicable financial values for molasses imports.

The regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 stipulates that the representative prices, import duties, and additional import duties for molasses falling under CN codes 1703 10 00 and 1703 90 00 are those listed in the annex. Article 2 repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2657. Article 3 specifies the regulation’s entry into force, which is the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex provides a table with specific amounts in EUR for representative prices, import duties, and additional duties for each of the mentioned CN codes. The import duties replace the standard rates of the Common Customs Tariff, as per Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2835.

The most important provision is the Annex, which contains the actual figures that economic operators need to apply when importing molasses. Specifically, for CN code 1703 10 00 (cane molasses), the representative price is set at EUR 22,47 per 100 kg, and the import duty is EUR 0. For CN code 1703 90 00 (beet molasses), the representative price is EUR 9,93 per 100 kg, with an import duty of EUR 0. There are no additional duties listed for either category. These figures are crucial for determining the financial obligations of importers and ensuring compliance with EU trade regulations in the sugar sector.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/124 of 14 January 2026 amending Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/124 amends Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, which concerns restrictive measures against Russia due to its actions destabilizing the situation in Ukraine. The key focus of this amendment is to adjust the price cap for Russian crude oil, which is a mechanism designed to limit Russia’s oil revenues while ensuring stable energy supplies to third countries. The regulation updates Annex XXVIII of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 to reflect the new price cap.

The structure of the regulation is straightforward: it consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annex XXVIII to Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 is amended as set out in the Annex to the new regulation. Article 2 specifies that the regulation will enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex contains the updated price for crude oil. The previous price per barrel was 47,6 USD, and it is now set at 44,1 USD, applicable from 1 February 2026.

**** The most important provision of this regulation is the updated price cap for Russian crude oil, set at 44,1 USD per barrel from 1 February 2026. This price cap is crucial for companies involved in the maritime transport, technical assistance, brokering services, or financing of Russian crude oil to third countries, as it determines the threshold above which these activities are prohibited. The regulation also maintains a transitional period for contracts concluded before 1 February 2026, which were compliant with the previous price cap of 47,6 USD, allowing their execution until 16 April 2026.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/85 of 14 January 2026 concerning the authorisation of tartrazine as a feed additive for its use in baits for freshwater food-producing finfish

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/85 authorises the use of tartrazine as a sensory feed additive to colour fishing baits for freshwater food-producing finfish. It specifies that tartrazine falls under the category of ‘sensory additives’ and the functional group of ‘colourants’ used to add or restore colour in feedingstuffs. The regulation outlines the conditions of use, including that it is only for fishing baits and not for aquaculture feed, and sets a maximum content level. It also mandates protective measures for users of the additive to prevent health risks.

The regulation consists of two articles and an annex. Article 1 sanctions the use of tartrazine as a feed additive under the conditions specified in the annex. Article 2 states that the regulation will take effect twenty days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The annex provides detailed information regarding the identification number, name, composition, chemical formula, description, and analytical method of the additive. It specifies the animal species for which the additive is intended (freshwater food-producing finfish), the maximum content allowed (30 mg/kg of complementary feed), and other provisions, including storage conditions, usage restrictions, and protective measures for users. The authorisation period ends on 4 February 2036. There are no direct changes compared to previous versions mentioned in the text, as it is a new authorisation.

The most important provisions for users include the maximum content of 30 mg/kg of complementary feed, the restriction to using the additive only in fishing baits and not in aquaculture feed, and the requirement for feed business operators to establish operational procedures and organisational measures to address potential risks. Furthermore, users must use personal protective equipment if the risks cannot be eliminated through procedures and measures. The regulation also specifies that the directions for use of the additive and premixture must indicate the storage conditions and stability to heat treatment.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/91 of 14 January 2026 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of a preparation of 6-phytase produced with Trichoderma reesei CBS 126897 as a feed additive for poultry, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening and sows, the authorisation of a preparation of 6-phytase produced with Trichoderma reesei CBS 126897 as a feed additive for ornamental birds, suckling piglets and minor porcine species (holder of authorisation: AB Enzymes Finland Oy) and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 292/2014

This is a description of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/91, which concerns the renewal of authorisation for a feed additive and its extension to new animal categories.

The regulation renews the authorisation of 6-phytase produced with Trichoderma reesei CBS 126897 as a feed additive for poultry, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, and sows. It also authorises its use for ornamental birds, suckling piglets, and minor porcine species. The additive is classified as a zootechnical additive, specifically a digestibility enhancer. The regulation repeals the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) No 292/2014, which initially authorised the additive for certain animal categories.

The regulation consists of 5 articles and an annex. Article 1 concerns the renewal of the authorisation of the preparation specified in the Annex for poultry, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening and sows. Article 2 concerns the authorisation of the preparation specified in the Annex as an additive in animal nutrition for ornamental birds, suckling piglets and minor porcine species. Article 3 repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) No 292/2014. Article 4 establishes transitional measures, allowing for the continued use of products produced and labelled under the previous regulation for a limited time. Article 5 states when the regulation comes into force. The annex specifies the identification number, the name of the authorisation holder, the name of the additive, its composition, chemical formula, description, analytical method, the animal species for which it is intended, the minimum and maximum content, other provisions and the end of the authorisation period.

Key provisions include the renewal of authorisation for existing uses, the extension of use to new animal species (ornamental birds, suckling piglets, and minor porcine species), and the establishment of a transitional period for adapting to the new requirements. The regulation also specifies the conditions of use, including the minimum and maximum content of the additive in feed, and mandates protective measures for users of the additive to prevent adverse health effects.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/92 of 14 January 2026 concerning the renewal of the authorisation of a preparation of Bacillus velezensis ATCC PTA-6737 as a feed additive for laying hens and minor poultry species for laying, the authorisation of a preparation of Bacillus velezensis ATCC PTA-6737 as a feed additive for other birds kept for egg production or breeding (holder of authorisation: Kemin Europa N.V.) and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1020

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/92 concerns the renewal of the authorization of Bacillus velezensis ATCC PTA-6737 as a feed additive for laying hens and minor poultry species, and its authorization for other birds kept for egg production or breeding. It re-approves the use of this additive as a “gut flora stabilizer” and expands its application to a broader range of poultry. The regulation also repeals the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1020, which initially authorized the additive.

The regulation consists of 5 articles and an annex. Article 1 renews the authorization of the additive for laying hens and minor poultry species for laying. Article 2 authorizes the use of the same additive for other birds kept for egg production or breeding. Article 3 repeals Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1020. Article 4 outlines transitional measures, allowing for the continued use of products produced and labeled under the previous regulation for a limited time. Article 5 states that the regulation will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex specifies the conditions of use, including the composition, identification number, and analytical methods for the additive, as well as the minimum content and other provisions. The main change is the expansion of the authorization to include “other birds kept for egg production or breeding.”

The most important provisions for users are the conditions of use specified in the Annex, including the required concentration of the additive in feed (1 × 108 CFU/kg), the need to indicate storage conditions and stability to heat treatment, and the requirement for feed business operators to establish procedures to address potential risks, including the use of personal protective equipment where risks cannot be eliminated. The end date of the authorization period, February 4, 2036, is also important for businesses to note.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/111 of 13 January 2026 amending Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404 as regards the entries for Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States in the lists of third countries, territories, or zones thereof authorised for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry and germinal products of poultry, and of fresh meat of poultry and game birds

This Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/111 amends Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404, specifically concerning the lists of third countries authorized for the entry into the Union of poultry, germinal products of poultry, and fresh meat of poultry and game birds. The regulation addresses recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It temporarily suspends the entry of these products from specific zones affected by the outbreaks, while also re-authorizing entry from zones where the HPAI situation has been resolved.

The regulation is structured with two articles and an annex. Article 1 states that Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this regulation. Article 2 indicates that the regulation enters into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Annex provides detailed amendments to Annexes V and XIV of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404, listing specific zones within Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and adjusting their authorization status for the import of poultry and related products into the EU based on the HPAI situation.

The most important provisions for users are the specific amendments to the lists in Annexes V and XIV, which detail the zones from which imports are suspended or re-authorized. These amendments directly impact businesses involved in the import and export of poultry and poultry products between the EU and Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It is crucial for these businesses to consult the updated lists to ensure compliance with EU regulations and avoid disruptions in trade.

Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/112 of 9 January 2026 establishing a fisheries closure for undulate ray in Union waters of 8 for vessels flying the flag of Spain

This Commission Regulation (EU) 2026/112 establishes a fisheries closure for undulate ray in Union waters of ICES area 8 for vessels flying the flag of Spain. It declares that Spain’s fishing quota for undulate ray in the specified area for 2025 has been exhausted. As a result, the regulation prohibits fishing for undulate ray by Spanish vessels in that area from a specified date. However, it allows for the processing and landing of catches taken before the closure date and outlines procedures for dealing with unintended catches.

The Regulation consists of three articles and an annex. Article 1 declares the quota exhaustion. Article 2 outlines the prohibitions, while allowing for certain activities related to catches taken before the closure date and specifying the treatment of unintended catches. Article 3 states the date of entry into force. The Annex specifies the Member State (Spain), the stock (Undulate ray), the zone (Union waters of 8) and the closing date (11 May 2025). There are no previous versions of this specific regulation to compare against, as it is a new regulation for the year 2026.

The most important provisions for practical use are those outlining the prohibitions and the handling of unintended catches. Specifically, Article 2 clarifies that while targeted fishing is prohibited, activities like transshipping, retaining on board, and landing catches taken before the closure date remain authorized. Furthermore, it mandates that unintended catches must be retained, recorded, landed, and counted against quotas, in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 January 2026.Lisa Leone and Others v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark Leone – Relative ground for invalidity – Right to an earlier name under Austrian law – Article 60(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-64/25.

This judgment concerns a dispute over the validity of the EU trade mark “Leone” for ice cream, initiated by Lisa Leone, Giorgio Leone, and Leone & Leone OG against the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The applicants sought to invalidate the mark based on their earlier rights to the name “Leone” under Austrian law.

The structure of the judgment is as follows:
1. The General Court annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO.
2. The EUIPO is ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

The core of the legal dispute revolves around the interpretation of Article 60(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which allows for the invalidation of an EU trade mark if its use can be prohibited under national law due to an earlier right to a name. The applicants argued that their rights to the name “Leone,” used in their ice cream business, were infringed by the registered EU trade mark. The Board of Appeal dismissed their claim, stating that Article 60(2)(a) protects names as personal attributes, not in their economic use, which falls under Article 60(1)(c) concerning trade names and business identifiers. The General Court disagreed with the Board of Appeal’s interpretation. It clarified that Article 60(2)(a) does not exclude the commercial exploitation of a name and that national law determines the conditions for protecting a name. The court emphasized that the distinction between Article 60(1)(c) and Article 60(2)(a) lies in the nature of the right: the former concerns signs distinguishing goods or services, while the latter protects the right to a name used to identify a person or business.

The most important aspect of this judgment is the clarification of the scope of Article 60(2)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001. The General Court’s interpretation confirms that the “right to a name” can extend to commercial uses of a name, not just its use as a personal attribute. This means that businesses can rely on their established name to challenge the validity of a later EU trade mark if national law protects that name. The judgment also highlights the importance of national law in determining the extent of protection for a name, making it crucial for applicants to provide detailed evidence of the relevant national provisions.

Arrêt du Tribunal (cinquième chambre) du 14 janvier 2026.#Issam Anbouba 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 la “femme ou de l’homme d’affaires influent exerçant ses activités en Syrie” – Présomption de lien avec le régime syrien – Chute du régime de Bachar al-Assad – Erreur d’appréciation – Obligation de motivation – Droits de la défense – Droit à un procès équitable – Droit à une protection juridictionnelle effective – Proportionnalité – Droit de propriété – Droit à la vie privée – Atteinte à la réputation.#Affaire T-403/24.

This is an analysis of a judgment by the EU Tribunal (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-403/24, *Issam Anbouba v Council of the European Union*.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment concerns restrictive measures (asset freeze and travel restrictions) imposed on Issam Anbouba due to the situation in Syria. The Tribunal reviews the Council’s decision to maintain Mr. Anbouba’s name on the lists of individuals subject to these measures. The core issue is whether the Council erred in its assessment and violated Mr. Anbouba’s fundamental rights by keeping him listed as an “influential businessman operating in Syria” presumed to be linked to the Syrian regime. The Tribunal ultimately rejects Mr. Anbouba’s claims and upholds the Council’s decision.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **Background:** Describes the context of EU restrictive measures against Syria since 2011 and the listing of individuals and entities associated with the Syrian regime. It outlines the specific decisions and regulations affecting Mr. Anbouba, including the Council’s decisions to maintain his name on the lists.
* **Arguments of the Parties:** Summarizes Mr. Anbouba’s claims for annulment of the Council’s decisions and the Council’s defense.
* **Legal Analysis:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Tribunal addresses Mr. Anbouba’s arguments, which include:
* Violation of the rights of defense and the right to a fair trial.
* Violation of the obligation to state reasons.
* Violation of the right to effective judicial protection.
* Error of assessment.
* Violation of the right to property, the principle of proportionality, and freedom to conduct a business.
* Violation of the right to normal living conditions.
* Serious damage to reputation.
* **Decision:** The Tribunal rejects all of Mr. Anbouba’s claims and orders him to pay the costs.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

* The judgment focuses on the criteria for maintaining Mr. Anbouba’s name on the lists, specifically the “influential businessman operating in Syria” criterion.
* It addresses the presumption of a link to the Syrian regime and whether the Council provided sufficient evidence to support this presumption.
* The Tribunal examines whether Mr. Anbouba presented sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption.
* The judgment considers the impact of the restrictive measures on Mr. Anbouba’s fundamental rights, such as the right to property, the right to a fair trial, and the right to respect for private and family life.
* The judgment emphasizes that the legality of an act is assessed based on the facts and laws at the time of its adoption. Subsequent events, such as the fall of the Assad regime, are not relevant to the legality of the contested acts.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

* The judgment clarifies the standard of proof required for maintaining individuals on sanctions lists, particularly the need for a sufficiently solid factual basis.
* It reinforces the principle that the Council must provide specific and concrete reasons for imposing restrictive measures.
* It highlights the importance of respecting the rights of defense and the right to effective judicial protection in the context of sanctions.
* The judgment confirms that fundamental rights are not absolute and can be restricted in pursuit of legitimate objectives of general interest, such as the protection of civilian populations.
* The judgment confirms that the legality of an act is assessed based on the facts and laws at the time of its adoption.

Urteil des Gerichts (Erste Kammer) vom 14. Januar 2026.#Schönegger Käse-Alm GmbH gegen Amt der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum.#Unionsmarke – Verfahren zur Erklärung des Verfalls – Unionswortmarke Rebell – Erklärung des teilweisen Verfalls – Entscheidung, die nach Aufhebung einer früheren Entscheidung durch das Gericht ergangen ist – Art. 72 Abs. 6 der Verordnung (EU) 2017/1001 – Unterbrechung des Verfahrens – Art. 106 Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Verordnung 2017/1001 – Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens – Art. 72 Abs. 1 der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2018/625 – Antrag auf Erklärung des Verfalls – Art. 63 Abs. 1 der Verordnung 2017/1001 – Zustellung an Vertreter – Art. 60 Abs. 1 der Delegierten Verordnung 2018/625.#Rechtssache T-549/24.

This document is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an appeal against a decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) concerning the revocation of the EU trademark “Rebell.” The case revolves around a request for revocation of the trademark due to lack of genuine use for certain goods, specifically dairy products. The court dismisses the appeal, upholding the EUIPO’s decision to partially revoke the trademark for specific goods while maintaining it for “cheese” and “cheese products.”

The structure of the judgment includes an introduction outlining the request for annulment, a summary of the background of the dispute (including the trademark application, registration, revocation request, and previous decisions), the conclusions of the parties, and the legal reasoning behind the court’s decision. The court addresses three pleas raised by the appellant: violation of Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 in conjunction with Article 106(1)(b) of the same regulation and Article 72(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625, violation of Article 63(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, and violation of Article 60(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625. The court rejects all three pleas and dismisses the appeal.

The most important provisions of the act for its use are those concerning the grounds for the appeal and the court’s reasoning for rejecting them. Specifically, the court clarifies the interpretation and application of Article 72(6) and Article 106(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, as well as Article 72(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625, regarding the EUIPO’s obligation to execute judgments of the General Court and the interruption of proceedings due to legal reasons. Additionally, the court addresses the requirements for legal standing in revocation proceedings under Article 63(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 and the rules for notifications to representatives under Article 60(1) of Delegated Regulation 2018/625.

Urteil des Gerichts (Achte Kammer) vom 14. Januar 2026.#Kct GmbH & Co. KG gegen Amt der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum.#Unionsmarke – Anmeldung einer Unionsmarke, die aus der Bewegung eines Klappfensters besteht – Absolutes Eintragungshindernis – Zeichen, das ausschließlich aus einem charakteristischen Merkmal der Ware besteht, das zur Erreichung einer technischen Wirkung erforderlich ist – Art. 7 Abs. 1 Buchst. e Ziff. ii der Verordnung (EU) 2017/1001.#Rechtssache T-9/25.

This document is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding a case between Kct GmbH & Co. KG and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The case concerns an application for a European Union trademark for the movement of a hinged window. The EUIPO rejected the trademark application, and Kct GmbH & Co. KG appealed this decision to the General Court.

The structure of the judgment is as follows: it presents the background of the dispute, including the trademark application and the EUIPO’s decision to reject it. It then outlines the arguments made by both parties. The court then analyzes the case based on Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which prohibits the registration of signs consisting exclusively of a characteristic of the product necessary to obtain a technical result. The court examines whether the movement of the window is a technical function and whether it is essential to the product. Finally, the court rules on the appeal and decides on the allocation of costs.

The most important provision of the act is the interpretation and application of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. The court clarifies how to determine the essential characteristics of a sign and whether those characteristics serve a technical function. The judgment emphasizes that the interest underlying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) is to prevent trademark law from granting a company a monopoly on technical solutions or utilitarian characteristics of a product. The court also notes that the perception of the sign by the relevant public is not a decisive element in applying this ground for refusal, but it can be a useful element in identifying the essential characteristics of the sign.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2026.Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Applications for the EU word marks Kimkom and Kimsum – Earlier EU word mark KIMPTON – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the services – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-619/24.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding two cases (T-619/24 and T-621/24) concerning EU trademark applications. Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group LLC opposed the registration of the word marks “Kimkom” and “Kimsum” by Kamstar GmbH, arguing that they were too similar to their earlier EU word mark “KIMPTON” and could cause confusion among consumers. The court partially annulled and altered the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), ultimately ruling in favor of Kimpton regarding “elderly care facilities” services.

The structure of the judgment is as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the trademark applications, the oppositions filed, and the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. It then details the forms of order sought by the applicant (Kimpton) and the defendant (EUIPO). The court then proceeds with its legal analysis, addressing the scope of the claim, the relevant public, the comparison of the signs and services, and ultimately concluding that there was indeed a likelihood of confusion for “elderly care facilities” services.

The most important provision of the act is Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which deals with the relative grounds for refusal of a trademark application due to the likelihood of confusion with an earlier trademark. The court’s interpretation and application of this article are central to the judgment. The court found that the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the similarity of services, specifically regarding “elderly care facilities,” and ultimately altered the Board’s decision to reject the trademark applications for “Kimkom” and “Kimsum” in relation to those services.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 January 2026.Ionfarma, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark DESMOMED – Prior national word mark DERMOMED – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity between the goods at issue – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-229/25.

This is a judgment from the General Court of the European Union regarding an EU trade mark dispute. The court ruled on the likelihood of confusion between a figurative mark DESMOMED applied for registration and an earlier national word mark DERMOMED. The court sided with the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office), confirming that there was no likelihood of confusion because the goods at issue were not similar.

The case revolves around Ionfarma, SL’s opposition to the registration of the EU trade mark DESMOMED by Carmelo Manola and Irene Simeone. The opposition was based on Ionfarma’s earlier Spanish word mark DERMOMED. The EUIPO’s Opposition Division initially upheld the opposition in part but rejected it for certain goods, a decision Ionfarma appealed. The Board of Appeal dismissed Ionfarma’s appeal, leading to this action before the General Court. The court examines whether the Board of Appeal correctly applied Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which concerns the likelihood of confusion between trademarks. The court assesses the similarity of the goods and the marks, considering the relevant public’s perception.

The court’s analysis focuses on comparing the goods covered by the marks. It finds that ‘Essential oils and aromatic extracts; Tailors’ and cobblers’ wax; fragrancing preparations; fragrancing preparations, other than for personal use; Animal grooming preparations; Toiletries’ (Class 3) and ‘Dietary supplements and dietetic preparations; medicated dentifrices’ (Class 5) under the DESMOMED application are dissimilar to ‘Adhesive plasters, gauzes, bandages, dressings and cottons’ (Class 5) under the DERMOMED mark. The court emphasizes differences in nature, intended purpose, method of use, and lack of complementarity between these goods. Ultimately, the General Court dismisses Ionfarma’s action, upholding the EUIPO’s decision that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks for the specified goods.

Arrêt du Tribunal (première chambre) du 14 janvier 2026.#Atlas Invest BV contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle.#Marque de l’Union européenne – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne figurative BioTechUSA – Motif absolu de refus – Caractère descriptif – Article 7, paragraphe 1, sous c), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001 – Obligation de motivation – Article 94, paragraphe 1, du règlement 2017/1001.#Affaire T-117/25.

This is a judgment of the General Court regarding the registrability of the EU trademark “BioTechUSA”.

**Essence of the Act:**

The General Court partially annuls a decision by the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) regarding the trademark “BioTechUSA.” The court agrees with the EUIPO that the trademark is descriptive for most goods and services it seeks to cover, as it suggests a biotechnological origin from the USA. However, the court disagrees regarding “portable medicine boxes, filled,” finding the trademark not descriptive for those specific goods. Consequently, the EUIPO’s decision is partially annulled, and each party bears its own costs.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* **Background:** Details the application for the “BioTechUSA” trademark, the goods and services it aimed to cover (classes 5, 29, 30, 32, and 35), and the EUIPO’s initial rejection of the application based on descriptiveness.
* **Decision Under Appeal:** Explains the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal’s decision to partially reject the trademark application, finding it descriptive and lacking distinctiveness.
* **Arguments of the Parties:** Summarizes the applicant’s (Atlas Invest BV) arguments for overturning the EUIPO’s decision and the EUIPO’s defense of its decision.
* **Legal Assessment:** This is the core of the judgment, where the General Court analyzes the arguments and the EUIPO’s decision. It covers:
* The Court’s competence to order publication of the trademark (finding it does not have such power).
* An assessment of whether the trademark is descriptive under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001. This involves defining the relevant public, analyzing the meaning of “BioTechUSA,” and assessing the connection between the trademark and the goods/services.
* An assessment of distinctiveness under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.
* An assessment of whether the EUIPO provided sufficient reasoning for its decision under Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001.
* **Decision on Costs:** Determines which party bears the costs of the proceedings.

**Main Provisions and Changes:**

* **Descriptiveness (Article 7(1)(c)):** The court emphasizes that a trademark is descriptive if it directly and concretely describes the characteristics of the goods/services to the relevant public. It upholds the EUIPO’s finding that “BioTechUSA” conveys the idea of biotechnological products originating from the USA for a wide range of goods like food supplements, foods, and beverages.
* **Distinctiveness (Article 7(1)(b)):** The court reiterates that if a trademark is descriptive, it generally lacks distinctiveness.
* **Reasoning (Article 94(1)):** The court confirms that the EUIPO must provide clear and unambiguous reasoning for its decisions, but it does not need to address every single piece of evidence submitted by the applicant.
* **Prior registrations:** The court is not bound by prior decisions of the EUIPO.

**Most Important Provisions for Use:**

* **Understanding “Descriptiveness”:** The judgment provides a detailed analysis of what constitutes a descriptive trademark, focusing on the directness and concreteness of the connection between the mark and the goods/services.
* **Impact of Figurative Elements:** The judgment clarifies that figurative elements in a trademark can only overcome descriptiveness if they are distinctive enough to distract the public from the descriptive message of the verbal elements.
* **EUIPO’s Reasoning Obligations:** The judgment confirms that the EUIPO must provide clear reasons for its decisions, but it has some discretion in how it addresses the evidence presented by applicants.
* **Prior Decisions:** The court is not bound by prior decisions of the EUIPO.

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 January 2026.Feras Al Akhras v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Syria – Freezing of funds – Restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States – Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources and subject to restrictions on entry into the territory of the Member States – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – ‘Family membership’ criterion – Criterion of ‘association with members of the Assad or Makhlouf families’ – Plea of illegality – Obligation to state reasons – Communication of the restrictive measures – Error of assessment – Proportionality – Freedom to conduct a business – Right to property.Case T-176/24.

Here’s a breakdown of the General Court’s judgment in Case T-176/24 concerning Mr. Feras Al Akhras and the Council of the European Union:

**1. Essence of the Act:**

This judgment concerns the legality of EU sanctions imposed on Mr. Feras Al Akhras, the brother of Asma Al-Assad (wife of the Syrian President). Mr. Al Akhras challenged the Council’s decision to include and maintain his name on the EU’s list of individuals subject to restrictive measures (asset freeze and travel ban) in view of the situation in Syria. The General Court ultimately dismissed Mr. Al Akhras’s action, upholding the Council’s decision.

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment addresses several legal arguments raised by Mr. Al Akhras, including:

* **Breach of the obligation to communicate the acts:** The Court found that even if the Council did not directly communicate the sanctions to Mr. Al Akhras, this did not invalidate the sanctions themselves, as he was still able to challenge them in court.
* **Breach of the obligation to state reasons:** The Court decided that the Council provided sufficient reasons for the sanctions, citing Mr. Al Akhras’s family connection to Asma Al-Assad and his alleged business ties benefiting the Syrian regime.
* **Error of assessment:** Mr. Al Akhras argued that the Council incorrectly assessed the facts. The Court disagreed, stating that his family connection alone was a sufficient basis for sanctions, and he failed to provide enough evidence to rebut the presumption of his association with the Syrian regime.
* **Breach of the principle of proportionality and fundamental rights:** Mr. Al Akhras claimed the sanctions violated his freedom to conduct business and right to property. The Court found that the sanctions were proportionate to the legitimate aim of putting pressure on the Syrian regime and did not unduly infringe on his fundamental rights.
* **Plea of illegality:** Mr. Al Akhras challenged the legality of the “family membership” criterion used for imposing sanctions. The Court rejected this plea, finding that the sanctions were based on his association with the Syrian regime, not solely on his family ties.

The judgment refers to Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2024/380, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/362, Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/1510 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1517.

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

* **The “family membership” and “association” criteria:** The judgment clarifies the EU’s ability to impose sanctions on individuals based on their family ties to the Assad or Makhlouf families, even without direct evidence of their involvement in supporting the Syrian regime. However, this is a rebuttable presumption, and individuals can challenge the sanctions by providing evidence that they are not associated with the regime.
* **The standard of proof:** The judgment confirms that the Council must provide a sufficiently solid factual basis for imposing sanctions, but it also acknowledges the difficulty of obtaining evidence in the context of the Syrian conflict.
* **Proportionality:** The judgment highlights the importance of balancing the EU’s objectives in imposing sanctions with the fundamental rights of individuals affected by those sanctions.
* **Individual assessment:** The judgment confirms that sanctions must be imposed on an individual, case-by-case basis, taking into account the proportionality of the measure concerned.

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 January 2026.Ionfarma, SL v European Union Intellectual Property Office.EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark DESMOMED – Prior national word mark DERMOMED – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity between the goods at issue – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.Case T-230/25.

This judgment by the General Court concerns a dispute over an EU trade mark application. Carmelo Manola and Irene Simeone applied to register the word mark DESMOMED, which Ionfarma, SL opposed, based on its earlier Spanish word mark DERMOMED. The court ultimately sided with EUIPO and the applicants, finding no likelihood of confusion between the two marks. This decision hinged on the court’s assessment that the goods covered by the respective marks were dissimilar, negating the likelihood of consumer confusion.

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins by outlining the background of the dispute, including the trade mark application, the opposition, and the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal. The court then presents the forms of order sought by the applicant and EUIPO. The core of the judgment involves a legal analysis based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/2001, which addresses the likelihood of confusion between trade marks. The court examines the relevant public, the similarity of the goods, and ultimately concludes that there is no likelihood of confusion. Finally, the judgment addresses the issue of costs.

The most important provision in this judgment is the application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/2001. The court’s analysis focuses on the dissimilarity of the goods covered by the respective trade marks. For Class 3 goods (essential oils, toiletries, etc.) in the DESMOMED application, the court found them dissimilar to DERMOMED’s Class 5 goods (adhesive plasters, gauzes, etc.) due to differences in nature, purpose, and commercial origin. Similarly, for Class 5 goods (dietary supplements, medicated dentifrices) in the DESMOMED application, the court found them dissimilar to DERMOMED’s Class 5 goods, emphasizing differences in intended use and a lack of complementarity or competition. This finding of dissimilarity was crucial in determining that there was no likelihood of confusion, leading to the dismissal of the action.

Arrêt du Tribunal (huitième chambre) du 14 janvier 2026.#Engie Energie Services contre Parlement européen.#Marchés publics de services – Procédure d’appel d’offres – Conduite et maintenance des installations techniques des bâtiments du Parlement à Strasbourg – Rejet de l’offre d’un soumissionnaire et attribution du marché à un autre soumissionnaire – Conformité de l’offre avec les exigences minimales – Erreur manifeste d’appréciation.#Affaire T-308/24.

This is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding a public procurement procedure.

**Essence of the Act:**

The judgment concerns a challenge by Engie Energie Services against the European Parliament’s decision to reject its bid for a contract involving the operation and maintenance of technical installations in the Parliament’s buildings in Strasbourg. Engie argued that the winning bid from Dalkia SA did not meet the minimum requirements set out in the tender documents. The General Court dismissed Engie’s claims, finding that the Parliament did not commit any manifest error of assessment in evaluating the bids.

**Structure and Main Provisions:**

The judgment is structured as follows:

* It starts by outlining the background to the dispute, including the initial tender process, the decisions to reject Engie’s bid and award the contract to Dalkia, and Engie’s subsequent request for review.
* It then summarizes the arguments made by Engie (the applicant) and the European Parliament (the defendant).
* The court then proceeds with its legal analysis, referencing relevant articles of the Financial Regulation (Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046) and established case law regarding the discretion of contracting authorities in public procurement procedures.
* The court examines Engie’s two main claims:
1. That Dalkia’s bid did not meet the minimum staffing requirements.
2. That Dalkia’s bid improperly subcontracted certain key services (“PC Conduite”).
* The court rejects both claims, finding that Engie failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Parliament made a manifest error of assessment.
* Finally, the court orders Engie to pay the costs of the proceedings.

**Main Provisions for Practical Use:**

The key takeaways from this judgment are:

* **Minimum Requirements:** The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the minimum requirements set out in tender documents, as stipulated by Article 167(1) and 168(6) of the Financial Regulation. Bids that fail to meet these requirements can be rejected.
* **Discretion of Contracting Authorities:** The court reiterates that contracting authorities have broad discretion in evaluating bids and making award decisions. The court’s review is limited to verifying procedural compliance, factual accuracy, and the absence of manifest errors of assessment or misuse of power.
* **Burden of Proof:** A party challenging a contracting authority’s decision bears the burden of proving that the authority made a manifest error of assessment. The evidence presented must be sufficient to undermine the plausibility of the authority’s assessment.
* **Staffing Requirements:** The judgment clarifies that, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the tender documents, bidders have flexibility in how they present their staffing proposals (e.g., in terms of full-time equivalents or number of positions).
* **Subcontracting:** Bidders must clearly indicate any subcontracting arrangements in their bids and ensure that these arrangements comply with the requirements of the tender documents.

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2026.Euro Asia Cargo Private Ltd v Council of the European Union.Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine – Prohibitions relating to dual-use goods and technology – Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the prohibitions – Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists – Annex IV to Decision (CFSP) 2014/512 and Annex IV to Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 – Right to be heard – Obligation to state reasons – Error of assessment – Freedom to conduct a business.Case T-232/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court regarding restrictive measures against Euro Asia Cargo Private Ltd in view of Russia’s actions destabilizing the situation in Ukraine. The court rejected the application for annulment of Council Decisions (CFSP) 2024/746, 2024/1744, 2024/2026, 2025/175, 2025/394, 2025/931 and Council Regulations (EU) 2024/745, 2024/1745, 2025/395, 2025/932, which included the applicant on lists of entities subject to prohibitions related to dual-use goods and technology. The court found no error of assessment, infringement of the freedom to conduct a business, or breach of the right to good administration.

The judgment addresses the applicant’s claims that the Council erred in its assessment, infringed Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (freedom to conduct a business), and breached the right to good administration, specifically regarding the obligation to state reasons and the right to be heard. The court examines the legal context, including Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, both concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilizing the situation in Ukraine, as amended by subsequent acts. The court assesses whether the Council provided sufficient reasons for including the applicant on the lists, whether the applicant’s right to be heard was respected, and whether the restrictive measures were proportionate and justified.

The court found that the Council had provided sufficient reasons for including Euro Asia Cargo Private Ltd on the lists, that the applicant’s right to be heard was not violated, and that the restrictive measures were a proportionate limitation on the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business, given the objective of increasing the costs of Russia’s actions destabilizing Ukraine. The court considered evidence presented by the Council, including the applicant’s role in facilitating shipments of electronic components to Russia, and concluded that the Council had not made an error of assessment. The court also addressed the applicant’s arguments regarding the significance of its contribution and its knowledge of the end-use of the goods, finding that the Council was not required to demonstrate that the applicant knowingly and intentionally supported the Russian military and industrial complex.

Urteil des Gerichts (Achte Kammer) vom 14. Januar 2026.#Variuscard Produktions- und Handels GmbH gegen Amt der Europäischen Union für geistiges Eigentum.#Unionsmarke – Anmeldung der Unionswortmarke CRYPTOSTAMP – Absolutes Eintragungshindernis – Beschreibender Charakter – Art. 7 Abs. 1 Buchst. c der Verordnung (EU) 2017/1001 – Gleichbehandlung – Grundsatz der guten Verwaltung.#Rechtssache T-140/25.

This document is a judgment of the General Court of the European Union regarding the trademark application for the word “CRYPTOSTAMP”. The court upholds the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to reject the trademark application based on the grounds that the term is descriptive and lacks distinctive character.

The structure of the judgment includes an introduction outlining the case, the background of the dispute, the arguments of the parties, and the legal reasoning of the court. The court addresses three pleas raised by the applicant: violation of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 (descriptiveness), violation of Article 7(1)(b) of the same regulation (lack of distinctiveness), and violation of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration. The court dismisses all three pleas and upholds the EUIPO’s decision.

The main provisions of the act are related to the articles of Regulation 2017/1001. The court’s analysis focuses on whether the term “CRYPTOSTAMP” is descriptive of the goods and services for which the trademark was sought. The court finds that the term is a combination of “crypto” (meaning encryption) and “stamp,” and would be understood by the relevant public as “encrypted stamp” or “cryptographic stamp.” The court concludes that this term directly describes the nature or characteristics of the goods and services in classes 9, 16, 36, and 42, and therefore cannot be registered as a trademark.

Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 January 2026.Froneri Bulgaria EOOD v European Union Intellectual Property Office.European Union design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered EU design representing a box with a lid – Grounds for invalidity – Individual character – Different overall impression – Novelty – Articles 5 and 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in the version prior to Regulation (EU) 2024/2822.Case T-517/24.

This is a judgment by the General Court of the European Union regarding an application for a declaration of invalidity of a registered EU design. The design in question represents a box with a lid, intended for products like food packaging and ice cream boxes. The applicant, Froneri Bulgaria EOOD, sought to invalidate the design, owned by Daesef AD, arguing that it lacked novelty and individual character due to the existence of earlier designs.

The structure of the judgment involves the General Court reviewing the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the EUIPO, which had dismissed Froneri Bulgaria’s appeal against the Invalidity Division’s decision to reject the application for a declaration of invalidity. The Court examines two main pleas: first, whether the contested design lacks individual character (Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002), and second, whether it lacks novelty (Article 5(1)(b) of the same regulation). The Court assesses the informed user’s perception, the designer’s degree of freedom, and compares the overall impressions of the contested design with those of earlier designs.

The most important provisions for understanding the judgment are those concerning the assessment of individual character and novelty of an EU design. The Court emphasizes that individual character is assessed by comparing the overall impression the design creates on an informed user with that of existing designs. The judgment clarifies how the informed user perceives the designs, the importance of the designer’s freedom, and how similarities and differences are weighed. The Court also confirms that if a design has individual character, it is considered novel.

Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 January 2026.Lego A/S v European Union Intellectual Property Office.European Union design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered EU design representing a building block from a toy building set – Earlier EU design – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – No different overall impression – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.Case T-628/24.

This judgment concerns a dispute between Lego A/S and Guangdong Qman Toys Industry Co. Ltd regarding the validity of a registered EU design for a building block from a toy building set. The General Court upheld the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, which had declared Lego’s design invalid due to a lack of individual character. The court agreed that the Lego design did not produce a different overall impression on an informed user compared to an earlier design.

The structure of the judgment follows a standard format, outlining the background of the dispute, the forms of order sought by each party, and the legal reasoning of the court. The core of the judgment revolves around the assessment of the individual character of the contested design, as defined in Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002. The court meticulously examines the informed user, the designer’s degree of freedom, and the overall impression produced by the designs in question. The judgment references and applies established case law on EU design law.

The most important provision of the act for its use is Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, which defines individual character as the overall impression the design produces on the informed user differing from that produced by any design made available to the public before the filing date. The court’s analysis and application of this provision, particularly its emphasis on the informed user’s perception and the designer’s degree of freedom, are crucial for understanding how individual character is assessed in design invalidity proceedings. The judgment also clarifies the interplay between Article 8(2) and 8(3) of Regulation No 6/2002 regarding features dictated by technical function and features allowing interconnection within a modular system.

Information concerning the entry into force of the renewal of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India [2026/113]

This notice from the Official Journal of the European Union announces the entry into force of the renewed Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India. The agreement, initially signed in 2001 and previously renewed in 2009, 2015, and 2020, has been renewed for another 5-year period. According to Article 11(b) of the agreement, the renewal came into effect on November 27, 2025, with the renewal being effective from May 17, 2025.

The notice provides a simple declaration of the effective date of the renewed agreement. It references the original agreement and the Council Decisions related to its previous renewals, allowing readers to trace the history and legal basis of this cooperation. The key provision is the statement that the renewal of the agreement is effective as of May 17, 2025, and entered into force on November 27, 2025, ensuring the continuation of scientific and technological cooperation between the EU and India.