Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62010CN0281

Case C-281/10 P: Appeal brought on 4 June 2010 by PepsiCo, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2010 in Case T-9/07: Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), PepsiCo, Inc.

OJ C 234, 28.8.2010, p. 23–24 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

28.8.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/23


Appeal brought on 4 June 2010 by PepsiCo, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2010 in Case T-9/07: Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), PepsiCo, Inc.

(Case C-281/10 P)

()

2010/C 234/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: PepsiCo, Inc. (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, abogados, V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 in Case T-9/07,

Give final judgment on the dispute by rejection the order sought at first instance or, in the alternative, remit the case to the General Court and

Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the applicant at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the grounds that the General Court violated article 25(1) (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 (1) by:

a)

failing to take into account the constraints on the designer in developing the contested design;

b)

wrongly interpreting the notion of the ‘informed user’ and his attention level;

c)

applying erroneous criteria in its assessment of ‘different overall impression’;

d)

carrying out a comparison between the designs based on actual products in the file rather than on the designs as registered;

e)

basing the comparison on distorted facts.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs

OJ L 3, p. 1


Top