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 62018CN0736

Case C-736/18 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2018 by Gugler France against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2018 in Case T-238/17: Gugler v EUIPO

OJ C 112, 25.3.2019, p. 13–14 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.3.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/13

Appeal brought on 26 November 2018 by Gugler France against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2018 in Case T-238/17: Gugler v EUIPO

(Case C-736/18 P)

(2019/C 112/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Gugler France (represented by: S. Guerlain, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Alexander Gugler

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the September 25th, 2018 decision of the General Court (8th Chamber) in case T-238/17 for violation of article 8 (4) EUTMR regarding the assessment of the likelihood of confusion which correspond to the concepts of article 8 (1) (b) EUTMR;

—

order Mr Alexander Gugler to bear the applicants costs in relation to the present proceeding.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant alleges infringement of article 8 (4) of the EUTMR and consequently article L711-4 of the French Code of Intellectual Property by failing to establish the existence of an economic link originating from the owner of the earlier right (the applicant) and towards the applicant of the contested mark (the defendant) and, also, the possible absence of a likelihood of confusion.

Top