This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CN0524
Case C-524/12 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2012 by TeamBank AG Nürnberg against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2012 in Case T-220/11 TeamBank AG Nürnberg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Case C-524/12 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2012 by TeamBank AG Nürnberg against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2012 in Case T-220/11 TeamBank AG Nürnberg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Case C-524/12 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2012 by TeamBank AG Nürnberg against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2012 in Case T-220/11 TeamBank AG Nürnberg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
OJ C 9, 12.1.2013, p. 33–34
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
12.1.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 9/33 |
Appeal brought on 19 November 2012 by TeamBank AG Nürnberg against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2012 in Case T-220/11 TeamBank AG Nürnberg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-524/12 P)
2013/C 9/56
Language of the case: German
Parties
Appellant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (represented by: D. Terheggen, Rechtsanwalt)
Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
|
— |
set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-220/11 in its entirety; |
|
— |
grant in full the applications made at first instance in its application of 18 April 2011 before the General Court. |
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
The General Court misapplied Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in finding there to be a likelihood of confusion between ‘f@ir Credit’ and ‘FERCREDIT’.
Contrary to the view taken by the General Court, there is a clear visual difference in the overall impressions of the two signs. Furthermore, account needs to be taken of the fact that the signs in dispute relate to financial services, which usually have significant financial consequences for their users. Thus, it is to be assumed that the average consumer will examine these signs particularly carefully and are highly likely to recognise the differences between them. However, the General Court did not adequately examine that circumstance.
On a correct assessment of that circumstance and the differences in the overall impression of both signs there are no relevant similarities between the signs.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).