This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008CN0559
Case C-559/08 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2009 by Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2008 in Case T-100/06 Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Case C-559/08 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2009 by Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2008 in Case T-100/06 Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Case C-559/08 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2009 by Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2008 in Case T-100/06 Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
OJ C 82, 4.4.2009, p. 10–11
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
4.4.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 82/10 |
Appeal brought on 9 February 2009 by Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2008 in Case T-100/06 Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-559/08 P)
(2009/C 82/19)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) (represented by: A. Kockläuner, Rechtsanwalt)
Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Artoz-Papier AG
Form of order sought
|
— |
Set aside in whole the Decision of the Court of First Instance dated 26 November 2008, Case T-l00/06. |
|
— |
Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the following grounds:
|
— |
the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the first plea in law, misinterpreted Article 43 Section 2 and Section 3 of the Community Trademark Regulation (CTMR) in conjunction with Article 4 Section 1 of the Madrid Agreement; |
|
— |
the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the first plea in law, infringed Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union (Consolidated Version) as well as Article 6 in connection with Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR); |
|
— |
the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the first plea in law, infringed Article 10 of Directive 89/104 (EC) (1) in conjunction with Article 1 of Directive 89/104 (EC); |
|
— |
the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the second plea in law, infringed Article 79 CTMR by not taking into account that the opponent acted in bad faith; |
|
— |
the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the second plea in law, wrongly viewed the trademarks at issue as confusingly similar and thus, infringed Article 8 Section 1 b) CTMR; |
|
— |
the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the second plea in law, infringed Article 135 Section 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance by not taking into account the supportive evidence as annexes to the court action before it; |
|
— |
the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the second plea in law, infringed Articles 49 and 50 in conjunction with Article 220 of the Treaty on European Union (Consolidated Version); |
|
— |
the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the second plea in law, did not take into account that OHIM misused their power. |
(1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L 40, p. 1).