Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62017CN0505

    Case C-505/17 P: Appeal brought on 18 August 2017 by Groupe Léa Nature against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 8 June 2017 in Case T-341/13 RENV: Groupe Léa Nature v European Union Intellectual Property Office

    OJ C 437, 18.12.2017, p. 15–15 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    18/08/2017
    Date lodged:
    18/08/2017
    Author:
    Court of Justice
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    English
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment, Appeal
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    18.12.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 437/15

    Appeal brought on 18 August 2017 by Groupe Léa Nature against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 8 June 2017 in Case T-341/13 RENV: Groupe Léa Nature v European Union Intellectual Property Office

    (Case C-505/17 P)

    (2017/C 437/18)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Appellant: Groupe Léa Nature (represented by: E. Baud, avocat)

    Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Debonair Trading Internacional Lda

    Form of order sought

    The appellant claims that the Court should:

    —

    set aside the judgment rendered by the General Court on June 8, 2017;

    —

    refer the case back to the General Court; and

    —

    order Debonair to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

    First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) EUMTR, based on a violation of the settled case-law pertaining to the assessment of the likelihood of confusion between the marks.

    In support of this plea the appellant claims that the General Court did not:

    —

    apply the relevant criteria required to determine the relevant public;

    —

    assess correctly the similarities between the signs;

    —

    properly apply the relevant requirements susceptible to assess the acquisition of a distinctive character through use; and

    —

    validly proceed with an analysis of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

    Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(5) EUMTR, based on a violation of the settled case-law rendered in relation to uses detrimental to the repute of an earlier mark.

    In support of this plea, the appellant claims that the General Court did not:

    —

    apply all the criteria required to establish the reputation of an earlier mark;

    —

    assess correctly the similarities between the signs;

    —

    proceed with a valid analysis of the existence of a link that the relevant public may make between the marks; and

    —

    properly assess the detrimental effect that the use of a trademark application is susceptible to have on the repute of an earlier mark.
    Top