This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CN0053
Case C-53/11 P: Appeal brought on 7 February 2011 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2010 in Case T-137/09 Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R 10)
Case C-53/11 P: Appeal brought on 7 February 2011 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2010 in Case T-137/09 Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R 10)
Case C-53/11 P: Appeal brought on 7 February 2011 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2010 in Case T-137/09 Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R 10)
SL C 152, 21.5.2011, p. 10–10
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
21.5.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 152/10 |
Appeal brought on 7 February 2011 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2010 in Case T-137/09 Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R 10)
(Case C-53/11 P)
2011/C 152/17
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)
Other parties to the proceedings: Nike International Ltd., Aurelio Muñoz Molina
Form of order sought
|
— |
That the Court set aside the judgment under appeal. |
|
— |
That the Court deliver a fresh judgment on the substance, rejecting the appeal against the contested decision, or refer the case back to the General Court. |
|
— |
That the Court order the applicant [before the General Court] to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
1. Infringement of Rule 49 of the CTMIR (1) and Article 59 of the CTMR (2)
The legal basis of the contested decision is Rule 49(1) of the CTMIR, in relation to the current Article 59 of the CTMR. However, the judgment under appeal makes no reference at any point either to Rule 49(1) of the CTMIR or to Article 59 of the CTMR, and makes no ruling on their applicability to the particular case. OHIM considers that that constitutes an error of law and a failure to state sufficient reasons.
2. Infringement of the OHIM Guidelines and Rule 49(1) of the CTMIR
OHIM considers that its Guidelines are not applicable to the particular case. Nevertheless, the judgment under appeal states on two occasions that the Boards of Appeal are obliged to apply the OHIM Guidelines. That constitutes, in OHIM’s opinion, an error of law.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark