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 62017CN0505

Case C-505/17 P: Appeal brought on 18 August 2017 by Groupe Léa Nature against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 8 June 2017 in Case T-341/13 RENV: Groupe Léa Nature v European Union Intellectual Property Office

OJ C 437, 18.12.2017, p. 15–15 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.12.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/15


Appeal brought on 18 August 2017 by Groupe Léa Nature against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 8 June 2017 in Case T-341/13 RENV: Groupe Léa Nature v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-505/17 P)

(2017/C 437/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Groupe Léa Nature (represented by: E. Baud, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Debonair Trading Internacional Lda

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment rendered by the General Court on June 8, 2017;

refer the case back to the General Court; and

order Debonair to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) EUMTR, based on a violation of the settled case-law pertaining to the assessment of the likelihood of confusion between the marks.

In support of this plea the appellant claims that the General Court did not:

apply the relevant criteria required to determine the relevant public;

assess correctly the similarities between the signs;

properly apply the relevant requirements susceptible to assess the acquisition of a distinctive character through use; and

validly proceed with an analysis of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(5) EUMTR, based on a violation of the settled case-law rendered in relation to uses detrimental to the repute of an earlier mark.

In support of this plea, the appellant claims that the General Court did not:

apply all the criteria required to establish the reputation of an earlier mark;

assess correctly the similarities between the signs;

proceed with a valid analysis of the existence of a link that the relevant public may make between the marks; and

properly assess the detrimental effect that the use of a trademark application is susceptible to have on the repute of an earlier mark.


Top