9.6.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/11

Appeal brought on 12 April 2007 by Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 6 February 2007 in Case T-477/04: Aktieselskabet af 21. November 2001 v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corp.)

(Case C-197/07 P)

(2007/C 129/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (represented by: C. Barrett Christiansen, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corp.)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—

set aside in whole the decision of the Court of First Instance dated 6 February 2007, case T-477/04 (the contested decision)

—

order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

—

set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonization in the Internal Market dated 7 October 2004, case R-364/2003-1

—

order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

With the present appeal, the Appellant submits that:

 

in finding reputation under 8(5) CTMR for the earlier marks the Court of First Instance wrongly:

1.

did not, in the contested decision, distinguish between the 36 earlier marks

2.

took into account evidence which did not comply with official OHIM guidelines

3.

took into account evidence with no reference to the earlier marks

4.

took into account undated evidence

5.

did not take into account that the relevant date for proving reputation is the filing date of the contested CTM application

6.

confirmed reputation based on evidence which was not approximate in time to the filing date of the contested CTM application

7.

took into account a market survey as evidence of reputation without any proof as to:

(a)

whether it has been conducted by an independent and recognised research institute or company

(b)

the number and profile (sex, age, occupation and background) of the interviewees

(c)

the method and circumstances under which the survey was carried out and the complete list of questions included in the questionnaire

(d)

whether the percentage reflected in the survey corresponds to the total amount of persons questioned or only to those who actually replied.

8.

did not consider the individual evidential value of the evidence submitted before making an overall assessment.

 

In finding unfair advantage of reputation under 8(5) CTMR the Court of First Instance wrongly:

9.

based its decision of unfair advantage on reputation — not repute — which does not comply with article 8(5) CTMR

10.

found that a possibility which cannot be ruled out is sufficient to prove prima facie evidence of a future risk, which is not hypothetical, of the taking of unfair advantage by the applicant of the reputation of the earlier marks.