This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018CN0155
Case C-155/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2018 by Tulliallan Burlington Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 December 2017 in Case T-120/16: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Case C-155/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2018 by Tulliallan Burlington Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 December 2017 in Case T-120/16: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Case C-155/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2018 by Tulliallan Burlington Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 December 2017 in Case T-120/16: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
OJ C 240, 9.7.2018, p. 10–11
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
Case C-155/18 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2018 by Tulliallan Burlington Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 December 2017 in Case T-120/16: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Appeal brought on 22 February 2018 by Tulliallan Burlington Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 December 2017 in Case T-120/16: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-155/18 P)
2018/C 240/14Language of the case: EnglishParties
Appellant: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Burlington Fashion GmbH
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— |
set aside the judgment of the General Court dismissing Tulliallan Burlington Ltd’s (TBL) appeal from the Board of Appeal; |
— |
set aside the decision of the Board of Appeal [or alternatively refer the case back to the General Court to be decided in accordance with the Court of Justice’s decision]; |
— |
order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Burlington Fashion GmbH (BFG) to pay the costs incurred by TBL in connection with this appeal. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant (‘TBL’) appeals from the General Court's judgment on the basis that the General Court made the following errors of law:
1) |
Pleas in law alleging infringement of Article 8(5)EUTMR ( 1 )
|
2) |
Pleas in law alleging infringement of Article 8(4) EUTMR
|
Pleas in law alleging infringement of Article 8(1) EUTMR
a) |
The General Court erred in applying Praktiker because in the light of the decision of the Court of Justice in EUIPO v Cactus (C-501/15 P; EU:C:2017:750), Praktiker does not apply to the Earlier Marks here. |
b) |
Further or alternatively, the General Court erred in applying Praktiker because that judgment does not apply to shopping arcade services. |
c) |
Even if TBL's Earlier Marks fell within the scope of ‘retail services’ and therefore fell within the ambit of Praktiker, the General Court was wrong to interpret Praktiker as necessarily precluding a finding of confusing similarity. |
d) |
Because it erred in its findings on the application of Praktiker, the General Court failed to either (i) conduct an assessment of the likelihood of confusion or (ii) refer that exercise to the Board of Appeal. In the circumstances, it was obliged to take one of these steps. |
( 1 ) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017, L 154, p. 1).