EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0270
Case C-270/14 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2014 by Debonair Trading Internacional Ld a against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 3 April 2014 in Case T-356/12: Debonair Trading Internacional Ld a v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Case C-270/14 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2014 by Debonair Trading Internacional Ld a against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 3 April 2014 in Case T-356/12: Debonair Trading Internacional Ld a v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Case C-270/14 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2014 by Debonair Trading Internacional Ld a against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 3 April 2014 in Case T-356/12: Debonair Trading Internacional Ld a v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
OJ C 303, 8.9.2014, p. 14–15
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
8.9.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 303/14 |
Appeal brought on 3 June 2014 by Debonair Trading Internacional Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 3 April 2014 in Case T-356/12: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Case C-270/14 P)
2014/C 303/18
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)
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 should:
|
1) |
Set aside paragraph 2 of the Decision dismissing the action as to the remainder; |
|
2) |
Remit the case to the General Court for further consideration with direction as to the applicable law; |
|
3) |
Order the Respondent to pay the costs both of the proceedings before the General Court and those before the Court of Justice. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellant relies on a single plea in law, namely infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR (1). In summary, it contends that the General Court erred by purporting to limit the conditions in which a likelihood of confusion may arise between a ‘family’ of trade marks and a later trade mark. Alternatively the Appellant contends that the General Court failed to carry out a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion taking into account all relevant factors.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark,