Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62012CN0014

Case C-14/12 P: Appeal brought on 11 January 2012 by Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2011 in Case T-313/10: Three-N-Products Private Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

OJ C 73, 10.3.2012, p. 23–23 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

10.3.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/23

Appeal brought on 11 January 2012 by Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2011 in Case T-313/10: Three-N-Products Private Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-14/12 P)

2012/C 73/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah (represented by: M. Chapple, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Three-N-Products Private Ltd.

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should order that:

—

the Judgment be annulled;

—

the Decision be affirmed;

—

the CTM Application be allowed to proceed to registration.

—

the Respondent pays to the Appellants the costs incurred by the Appellants in connection with this Appeal, the hearing before the General Court and the Decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants respectfully submit that the General Court erred as a matter of law in the following respects:

 

The General Court wrongly decided that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade mark in suit and the two earlier registered trade marks upon which the Respondent relies (one a word mark of AYUR and the other figurative mark containing the word AYUR), given the weak distinctive character of the earlier marks and the low overall similarity between the signs at issue;

 

In particular the General Court wrongly decided that although the letters U and I added respectively in the middle and at the end of the word AYUR, give difference to the trade mark in suit, such difference is ‘not such as to attract the attention of the consumer’;

 

Also in particular the General court wrongly decided that there were no significant and substantial visual, phonetic and conceptual differences between the signs at issue.
Top