Legal Acts Review<\/title><br \/>\n<\/head><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026\/50<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026\/117<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/51<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/89<\/h3>\n<p>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 Stocks of the additive and premixtures containing it must be withdrawn by 4 May 2026.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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/90<\/h3>\n<p>This regulation authorises the use of L-arginine, produced with <em>Corynebacterium glutamicum<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/120<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/124<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/85<\/h3>\n<p>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 \u2018sensory additives\u2019 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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/91<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/92<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/111<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Regulation (EU) 2026\/112<\/h3>\n<p>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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, regarding \u201cLeone\u201d trademark<\/h3>\n<p>This judgment concerns a dispute over the validity of the EU trade mark \u201cLeone\u201d 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 \u201cright to a name.\u201d The judgment confirms that this right can extend to commercial uses of a name, not just personal attributes.<\/p>\n<h3>Judgment \u2013 Case T-403\/24, *Issam Anbouba v Council of the European Union*<\/h3>\n<p>The General Court upheld sanctions imposed on Mr. Issam Anbouba. The Tribunal rejected Mr. Anbouba\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, regarding \u201cRebell\u201d trademark<\/h3>\n<p>The General Court dismissed an appeal against the EUIPO\u2019s decision to partially revoke the EU trademark \u201cRebell.\u201d While revoking the trademark for certain goods, the Court maintained it for \u201ccheese\u201d and \u201ccheese products.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, hinged window trademark<\/h3>\n<p>The General Court upheld the EUIPO\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Cases T-619\/24 and T-621\/24, \u201cKimkom\u201d and \u201cKimsum\u201d trademarks<\/h3>\n<p>In a trademark dispute between Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group LLC and Kamstar GmbH, the General Court partially annulled the EUIPO\u2019s decision. Kimpton successfully opposed the registration of \u201cKimkom\u201d and \u201cKimsum\u201d for \u201celderly care facilities\u201d due to the likelihood of confusion with their earlier trademark, \u201cKIMPTON\u201d. The key provision is Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, \u201cDESMOMED\u201d and \u201cDERMOMED\u201d trademarks<\/h3>\n<p>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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, \u201cBioTechUSA\u201d trademark<\/h3>\n<p>The General Court partially annulled an EUIPO decision regarding the trademark \u201cBioTechUSA\u201d. While the court agreed with the EUIPO that the trademark was descriptive for most goods and services, it disagreed regarding \u201cportable medicine boxes, filled.\u201d The court emphasized that a trademark is descriptive if it directly and concretely describes the characteristics of the goods\/services to the relevant public.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case T-176\/24, *Feras Al Akhras v Council of the European Union*<\/h3>\n<p>The General Court dismissed Mr. Al Akhras\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, regarding \u201cDESMOMED\u201d and \u201cDERMOMED\u201d trademarks<\/h3>\n<p>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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, public procurement<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, Euro Asia Cargo Private Ltd sanctions<\/h3>\n<p>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\u2019s role in facilitating shipments of electronic components to Russia.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, \u201cCRYPTOSTAMP\u201d trademark<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, EU design for a box with a lid<\/h3>\n<p>The judgment concerns a challenge to a design and assesses the informed user\u2019s perception, the designer\u2019s degree of freedom, and compares the overall impressions of the contested design with those of earlier designs.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, toy building blocks design<\/h3>\n<p>The General Court upheld the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, which had declared Lego\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Renewed Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/97: African Swine Fever Control Measures Updated<\/h3>\n<p> This regulation focuses on combating the spread of African Swine Fever (ASF) within the EU. It updates the restricted zones in several Member States where special disease control measures apply. Specifically, the regulation amends Annex I of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023\/594, providing a new list of restricted zones (I, II, and III) for Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Italy, Czechia, Greece, Croatia and Lithuania. These zones are defined geographically, often down to the level of municipalities. The updated zoning has direct implications for the movement of live pigs and certain pig products within the Union, as Member States with listed zones are obliged to apply special disease control measures.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Regulation (EU) 2026\/78: Cosmetic Product Safety Enhanced with Updated CMR Substance Restrictions<\/h3>\n<p> This regulation updates the rules on cosmetic products, amending Regulation (EC) No. 1223\/2009 to restrict or prohibit the use of substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic for reproduction (CMR). Annexes II, III, IV, and V are modified to reflect these changes. Key changes include updates on silver, Hexyl Salicylate, o-Phenylphenol and Sodium o-Phenylphenate including allowing micron-sized silver as a colorant under specific conditions and adding Sodium o-Phenylphenate to the list of allowed preservatives, with usage warnings. Specific conditions and concentration limits are set for the use of these substances in cosmetic products.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Acts Review 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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14665","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eu-legislation-general-en","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14665","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14665"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14665\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14665"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14665"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14665"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

{"id":14665,"date":"2026-01-19T10:01:08","date_gmt":"2026-01-19T08:01:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/01\/review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-12-01-2026-19-01-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-01-19T10:01:08","modified_gmt":"2026-01-19T08:01:08","slug":"review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-12-01-2026-19-01-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/01\/review-of-the-eu-legislation-for-12-01-2026-19-01-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of the EU legislation for 12\/01\/2026 – 19\/01\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\nLegal Acts Review<\/title><br \/>\n<\/head><\/p>\n<h3>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026\/50<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026\/117<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/51<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/89<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/90<\/h3>\n<p>This regulation authorises the use of L-arginine, produced with <em>Corynebacterium glutamicum<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/120<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/124<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/85<\/h3>\n<p>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 \u2018sensory additives\u2019 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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/91<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/92<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/111<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Regulation (EU) 2026\/112<\/h3>\n<p>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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, regarding \u201cLeone\u201d trademark<\/h3>\n<p>This judgment concerns a dispute over the validity of the EU trade mark \u201cLeone\u201d 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 \u201cright to a name.\u201d The judgment confirms that this right can extend to commercial uses of a name, not just personal attributes.<\/p>\n<h3>Judgment \u2013 Case T-403\/24, *Issam Anbouba v Council of the European Union*<\/h3>\n<p>The General Court upheld sanctions imposed on Mr. Issam Anbouba. The Tribunal rejected Mr. Anbouba\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, regarding \u201cRebell\u201d trademark<\/h3>\n<p>The General Court dismissed an appeal against the EUIPO\u2019s decision to partially revoke the EU trademark \u201cRebell.\u201d While revoking the trademark for certain goods, the Court maintained it for \u201ccheese\u201d and \u201ccheese products.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, hinged window trademark<\/h3>\n<p>The General Court upheld the EUIPO\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Cases T-619\/24 and T-621\/24, \u201cKimkom\u201d and \u201cKimsum\u201d trademarks<\/h3>\n<p>In a trademark dispute between Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group LLC and Kamstar GmbH, the General Court partially annulled the EUIPO\u2019s decision. Kimpton successfully opposed the registration of \u201cKimkom\u201d and \u201cKimsum\u201d for \u201celderly care facilities\u201d due to the likelihood of confusion with their earlier trademark, \u201cKIMPTON\u201d. The key provision is Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, \u201cDESMOMED\u201d and \u201cDERMOMED\u201d trademarks<\/h3>\n<p>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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, \u201cBioTechUSA\u201d trademark<\/h3>\n<p>The General Court partially annulled an EUIPO decision regarding the trademark \u201cBioTechUSA\u201d. While the court agreed with the EUIPO that the trademark was descriptive for most goods and services, it disagreed regarding \u201cportable medicine boxes, filled.\u201d The court emphasized that a trademark is descriptive if it directly and concretely describes the characteristics of the goods\/services to the relevant public.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case T-176\/24, *Feras Al Akhras v Council of the European Union*<\/h3>\n<p>The General Court dismissed Mr. Al Akhras\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, regarding \u201cDESMOMED\u201d and \u201cDERMOMED\u201d trademarks<\/h3>\n<p>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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, public procurement<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, Euro Asia Cargo Private Ltd sanctions<\/h3>\n<p>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\u2019s role in facilitating shipments of electronic components to Russia.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, \u201cCRYPTOSTAMP\u201d trademark<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, EU design for a box with a lid<\/h3>\n<p>The judgment concerns a challenge to a design and assesses the informed user\u2019s perception, the designer\u2019s degree of freedom, and compares the overall impressions of the contested design with those of earlier designs.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Judgment \u2013 Case Information Not Provided, toy building blocks design<\/h3>\n<p>The General Court upheld the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, which had declared Lego\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3>No information – Renewed Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India<\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/97: African Swine Fever Control Measures Updated<\/h3>\n<p> This regulation focuses on combating the spread of African Swine Fever (ASF) within the EU. It updates the restricted zones in several Member States where special disease control measures apply. Specifically, the regulation amends Annex I of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023\/594, providing a new list of restricted zones (I, II, and III) for Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Italy, Czechia, Greece, Croatia and Lithuania. These zones are defined geographically, often down to the level of municipalities. The updated zoning has direct implications for the movement of live pigs and certain pig products within the Union, as Member States with listed zones are obliged to apply special disease control measures.<\/p>\n<h3>Commission Regulation (EU) 2026\/78: Cosmetic Product Safety Enhanced with Updated CMR Substance Restrictions<\/h3>\n<p> This regulation updates the rules on cosmetic products, amending Regulation (EC) No. 1223\/2009 to restrict or prohibit the use of substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic for reproduction (CMR). Annexes II, III, IV, and V are modified to reflect these changes. Key changes include updates on silver, Hexyl Salicylate, o-Phenylphenol and Sodium o-Phenylphenate including allowing micron-sized silver as a colorant under specific conditions and adding Sodium o-Phenylphenate to the list of allowed preservatives, with usage warnings. Specific conditions and concentration limits are set for the use of these substances in cosmetic products.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Acts Review 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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14665","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eu-legislation-general-en","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14665","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14665"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14665\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14665"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14665"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14665"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}