This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CN0088
Case C-88/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2011 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-497/09 LG Electronics v OHIM (KOMPRESSOR PLUS)
Case C-88/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2011 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-497/09 LG Electronics v OHIM (KOMPRESSOR PLUS)
Case C-88/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2011 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-497/09 LG Electronics v OHIM (KOMPRESSOR PLUS)
SL C 120, 16.4.2011, p. 8–8
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
16.4.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 120/8 |
Appeal brought on 25 February 2011 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-497/09 LG Electronics v OHIM (KOMPRESSOR PLUS)
(Case C-88/11 P)
2011/C 120/14
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: LG Electronics, Inc. (represented by J. Blanchard, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Form of order sought
|
— |
declare the appeal admissible; |
|
— |
set aside the judgment of the Second Chamber of the General Court of 16 December 2010; |
|
— |
set aside in part the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2009 in so far as it dismissed in part the appeal brought by LG Electronics against the decision of 5 February 2009 refusing the application for registration of Community trade mark No 007282924 in so far as it designated ‘electric vacuum cleaners’; |
|
— |
order OHIM to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant pleads an infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark. (1)
The appellant observes, first, that the General Court relied on new facts, communicated for the first time by OHIM before the Court, which had not been relied on before the Board of Appeal.
The appellant submits, second, that the General Court erred by distorting the facts and evidence submitted to it, leading to conclude wrongly that vacuum cleaners could be used as compressors.
Finally, it observes that, since vacuum cleaners do not in any event contain a compressor and cannot be used as compressors, the mark KOMPRESSOR PLUS cannot in any case be regarded as consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the services, or other characteristics of the goods or service.