This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015CN0399
Case C-399/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2015 by Vichy Catalán, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-302/15 Vichy Catalán v OHIM — Hijos de Rivera (Fuente Estrella)
Case C-399/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2015 by Vichy Catalán, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-302/15 Vichy Catalán v OHIM — Hijos de Rivera (Fuente Estrella)
Case C-399/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2015 by Vichy Catalán, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-302/15 Vichy Catalán v OHIM — Hijos de Rivera (Fuente Estrella)
IO C 406, 7.12.2015, p. 13–14
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
7.12.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 406/13 |
Appeal brought on 23 July 2015 by Vichy Catalán, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-302/15 Vichy Catalán v OHIM — Hijos de Rivera (Fuente Estrella)
(Case C-399/15 P)
(2015/C 406/14)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Appellant: Vichy Catalán, S.A. (represented by: R. Bercovitz Álvarez, abogado)
Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Hijos de Rivera (Fuente Estrella)
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— |
Annul the order under appeal, replacing it with a declaration that the application brought by the appellant in Case T-302/15 before the General Court is admissible. |
— |
Order any parties that may appear to defend order under appeal to pay the costs of the present appeal. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The order of the General Court (Third Chamber) in which the application was dismissed as inadmissible is unlawful for the following reasons:
1. |
Infringement of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (no statute-barring when the existence of unforeseeable circumstances, or of force majeure, is proved), in two respects;
|
2. |
Incorrect interpretation of Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure. |
3. |
Retroactive application, to the detriment of the appellant, of new provisions of the Rules of Procedure, which came into force on 1 July 2015, to situations which had to be subject to the previous Rules of Procedure. |