10.9.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/30

Appeal brought on 28 June 2011 by Alder Capital Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 April 2011 in Case T-209/09: Alder Capital Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gimv Nederland BV

(Case C-328/11 P)

2011/C 269/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alder Capital Ltd (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gimv Nederland BV

Form of order sought

The appellant requests the Court of Justice to make the following orders:

—

The judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 in Case T-209/09 and the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of 20 February 2009 in Case R 486/2008-2 are annulled.

—

The costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office, before the General Court and before this Court shall be borne by the Office and by the Intervener.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant claims that the contested judgment must be annulled on three separate grounds.

The principal ground is that the General Court committed legal error when it held that the Board of Appeal was required, as a matter of law, to review the claim for a declaration of invalidity as it had been presented to the Office's Invalidity Division. The Appellant's claim is that the scope of review was limited to the subject matter of the appeal brought by the Appellant.

The subsidiary grounds are:

—

that the General Court committed legal error in dismissing the Appellants’ arguments as ‘irrelevant’ that the Intervener infringed applicable financial services authorisation and regulation and anti-money laundering laws and regulations in offering the services for which its mark ‘Halder’ was used in Germany (infringement of Article 56 (2) and (3) CTMR in conjunction with Article 15 CTMR), and

—

that the General Court committed legal error in concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion even though the degree of attention of the public was ‘very high’ (infringement of Article 8 (l)(b) CTMR).