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 62008CN0559

Case C-559/08 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2009 by Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2008 in Case T-100/06 Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

OJ C 82, 4.4.2009, p. 10–11 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

4.4.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/10

Appeal brought on 9 February 2009 by Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 26 November 2008 in Case T-100/06 Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-559/08 P)

(2009/C 82/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Deepak Rajani (Dear!Net Online) (represented by: A. Kockläuner, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Artoz-Papier AG

Form of order sought

—

Set aside in whole the Decision of the Court of First Instance dated 26 November 2008, Case T-l00/06.

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the following grounds:

—

the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the first plea in law, misinterpreted Article 43 Section 2 and Section 3 of the Community Trademark Regulation (CTMR) in conjunction with Article 4 Section 1 of the Madrid Agreement;

—

the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the first plea in law, infringed Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union (Consolidated Version) as well as Article 6 in connection with Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR);

—

the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the first plea in law, infringed Article 10 of Directive 89/104 (EC) (1) in conjunction with Article 1 of Directive 89/104 (EC);

—

the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the second plea in law, infringed Article 79 CTMR by not taking into account that the opponent acted in bad faith;

—

the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the second plea in law, wrongly viewed the trademarks at issue as confusingly similar and thus, infringed Article 8 Section 1 b) CTMR;

—

the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the second plea in law, infringed Article 135 Section 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance by not taking into account the supportive evidence as annexes to the court action before it;

—

the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the second plea in law, infringed Articles 49 and 50 in conjunction with Article 220 of the Treaty on European Union (Consolidated Version);

—

the Court of First Instance, when rejecting the second plea in law, did not take into account that OHIM misused their power.

(1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L 40, p. 1).

Top