This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/283/20
Case C-398/07 P: Appeal brought on 28 August 2007 by Waterford Wedgwood plc against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 June 2007 in Case T-105/05: Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Case C-398/07 P: Appeal brought on 28 August 2007 by Waterford Wedgwood plc against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 June 2007 in Case T-105/05: Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Case C-398/07 P: Appeal brought on 28 August 2007 by Waterford Wedgwood plc against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 June 2007 in Case T-105/05: Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
SL C 283, 24.11.2007, p. 12–12
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
24.11.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 283/12 |
Appeal brought on 28 August 2007 by Waterford Wedgwood plc against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 June 2007 in Case T-105/05: Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Case C-398/07 P)
(2007/C 283/20)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Waterford Wedgwood plc (represented by: J. Pagenberg, Rechtsanwalt)
Other parties to the proceedings: Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2007 in Case T-105/05 |
|
— |
refer the case back to the Court of First Instance |
|
— |
order OHIM and Assembled Investments to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellant claims that the Court of First Instance violated Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) in that it applied erroneous legal criteria in determining that the conflicting goods are not similar.
The Appellant further claims that the Court of First Instance violated Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation by holding, in paragraph 34 of its judgment, contrary to the Board of Appeal, that consumers would not consider the respective goods to be similar, without any evidentiary basis for this finding, which is thus based on a distortion of the facts.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).