This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CN0281
Case C-281/10 P: Appeal brought on 4 June 2010 by PepsiCo, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2010 in Case T-9/07: Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), PepsiCo, Inc.
Case C-281/10 P: Appeal brought on 4 June 2010 by PepsiCo, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2010 in Case T-9/07: Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), PepsiCo, Inc.
Case C-281/10 P: Appeal brought on 4 June 2010 by PepsiCo, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2010 in Case T-9/07: Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), PepsiCo, Inc.
SL C 234, 28.8.2010, p. 23–24
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
28.8.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 234/23 |
Appeal brought on 4 June 2010 by PepsiCo, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2010 in Case T-9/07: Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), PepsiCo, Inc.
(Case C-281/10 P)
()
2010/C 234/38
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: PepsiCo, Inc. (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, abogados, V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwältin)
Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 in Case T-9/07, |
|
— |
Give final judgment on the dispute by rejection the order sought at first instance or, in the alternative, remit the case to the General Court and |
|
— |
Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the applicant at first instance. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the grounds that the General Court violated article 25(1) (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 (1) by:
|
a) |
failing to take into account the constraints on the designer in developing the contested design; |
|
b) |
wrongly interpreting the notion of the ‘informed user’ and his attention level; |
|
c) |
applying erroneous criteria in its assessment of ‘different overall impression’; |
|
d) |
carrying out a comparison between the designs based on actual products in the file rather than on the designs as registered; |
|
e) |
basing the comparison on distorted facts. |
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs
OJ L 3, p. 1