|
14.7.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 223/3 |
Appeal brought on 11 April 2014 by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2014 in Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-182/14 P)
2014/C 223/03
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (represented by: A. Nordemann, M.C. Maier, Rechtsanwälte)
Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the contested judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 as far as it concerns Case T-292/12, |
|
— |
if necessary, remit the case back to the General Court, |
|
— |
order the Defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant bases its appeal on a single plea, alleging infringement of article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), of 26 February 2009, on the Community trade mark.
Specifically the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law:
|
1) |
in not taking into consideration, or even mentioning, in the framework of a global assessment, that the earlier trade mark, MAGNET 4, consists of the number ‘4’; |
|
2) |
in considering, at paragraphs 22 and 25 of its judgment, the element MAGNET as the dominant element of the earlier trademark, MAGNET 4; |
|
3) |
in applying, at paragraph 25, different standards to the assessment of the phonetic and visual similarities of the signs MAGNET 4 and MAGNEXT; |
|
4) |
by not taking into account, at paragraph 35, in the framework of a global appreciation of the likelihood of confusion, the interdependence of the relevant factors, in particular the low level of distinctiveness of the earlier mark, MAGNET 4, the lack of conceptual similarity of the signs MAGNET 4 and MAGNEXT, and the weak degree of phonetic and visual similarities of the signs; |
|
5) |
in not providing substantive grounds, in paragraph 35, with regard to the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the signs MAGNET 4 and MAGNEXT |