This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CO0014
Shah v Three-N-Products Private
Shah v Three-N-Products Private
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 —
Shah v Three-N-Products Private
(Case C-14/12 P)
‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Application for registration of the Community word mark AYUURI NATURAL — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word and figurative marks AYUR — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded’
|
1. |
Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras. 24, 25) |
|
2. |
Appeals — Grounds — Contradictory grounds — Admissibility (see para. 30) |
|
3. |
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Incidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37-41) |
|
4. |
Appeals — Grounds — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid plea in law — Rejection (see para. 43) |
Re:
Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 in Case T-313/10 THREE-N-PRODUCTS PRIVATE v OHIM — SHAH (AYUURI NATURAL), by which that court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 1 June 2010 in Case R 1005/2009-4 annulling the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the application for registration of the word mark ‘AYUURI NATURAL’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 in the opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the Community figurative and word marks including the word element ‘AYUR’ in respect of goods in Classes 3 and 5 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs.
Operative part
|
1. |
The appeal is dismissed. |
|
2. |
Mr Sheilesh Shah and Mr Akhil Shah are ordered to pay the costs. |
|
3. |
The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is ordered to bear its own costs. |
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 May 2013 —
Shah v Three-N-Products Private
(Case C-14/12 P)
‛Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Application for registration of the Community word mark AYUURI NATURAL — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word and figurative marks AYUR — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded’
|
1. |
Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras. 24, 25) |
|
2. |
Appeals — Grounds — Contradictory grounds — Admissibility (see para. 30) |
|
3. |
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Incidence (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 37-41) |
|
4. |
Appeals — Grounds — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid plea in law — Rejection (see para. 43) |
Re:
Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 in Case T-313/10 THREE-N-PRODUCTS PRIVATE v OHIM — SHAH (AYUURI NATURAL), by which that court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 1 June 2010 in Case R 1005/2009-4 annulling the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the application for registration of the word mark ‘AYUURI NATURAL’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 in the opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the Community figurative and word marks including the word element ‘AYUR’ in respect of goods in Classes 3 and 5 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs.
Operative part
|
1. |
The appeal is dismissed. |
|
2. |
Mr Sheilesh Shah and Mr Akhil Shah are ordered to pay the costs. |
|
3. |
The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is ordered to bear its own costs. |