Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62012CN0593

Case C-593/12 P: Appeal brought on 18 December 2012 by Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2012 in Case T-204/10: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

OJ C 55, 23.2.2013, p. 7–7 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/7

Appeal brought on 18 December 2012 by Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2012 in Case T-204/10: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-593/12 P)

2013/C 55/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul the Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2012 in Case T-204/10;

—

Order the Office to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and before the General Court, as well as the costs of the proceedings before the Office’s Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

 

First, the Appellant claims that the General Court violated Article 53(1) CTMR (1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR in deciding that the Office was justified in finding that COLOR FOCUS must be declared invalid because of likelihood of confusion.

 

Second, the Appellant claims that the General Court committed reversible legal error in dismissing the Appellant’s claim that the assertion of rights based on the mark FOCUS amounts to an ‘abuse of rights’.

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, p. 1

Top