1.1.

The General Court erred in law in its consideration of the distinctive character of the designation ‘F 1’. Firstly, the General Court violated the rule of established case-law that the distinctive character of a trade mark must be assessed by reference to the concrete goods and services covered by the mark. Secondly, the respective findings were based on distortion of the facts. Thirdly, the General Court failed to apply the rule of established case-law that the acquisition of the distinctive character of a mark may also be a result of its use as part of another registered trademark. Fourthly, the General Court's findings in this regard led to them applying an inadmissible de facto annulment of the Appellant's registered trademarks ‘F 1’ in standard typeset.

1.2.

The General Court erred in law in its consideration of the likelihood of confusion under Art. 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 40/94 both with regard to the opposition marks ‘F 1’ in standard typeset as well as the ‘F 1 Formula 1’ logotype. Firstly, it did not take into account the relevant factor of identity respectively high similarity in goods and services despite its own finding of a relevant degree of similarity in signs. Secondly, it focused on the factor of distinctiveness of the term ‘F 1’ to the exclusion of other relevant factors confirmed in established case-law. Thirdly, it failed to assess the similarity of the signs in accordance with the degree of resemblance between them.

2.1.

The General Court erroneously excluded the reputation of the Appellant's trademarks ‘F 1’ in standard typeset.

2.2.

The General Court furthermore erred in law in its consideration of the similarity in signs with regard to the opposition mark ‘F1 Formula 1’ logotype as it falsely assumed the absence of distinctiveness of the term ‘F 1’.