EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0512
Case C-512/14 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-686/13, Unibail v OHIM
Case C-512/14 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-686/13, Unibail v OHIM
Case C-512/14 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-686/13, Unibail v OHIM
OJ C 138, 27.4.2015, p. 24–25
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
27.4.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 138/24 |
Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-686/13, Unibail v OHIM
(Case C-512/14 P)
(2015/C 138/34)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings: Unibail Management
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Set aside the judgment under appeal, |
|
— |
Rule on the dispute pursuant to the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and |
|
— |
Order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by OHIM. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant raises a single ground of appeal in support of its appeal. OHIM submits that the General Court infringed the first sentence of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of the same regulation. The General Court misconstrued not only the scope of the concept of general reasoning, but also its own case-law. Finally, the appellant criticises the General Court for having reversed the burden of proof.