EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-100/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2011 by Helena Rubinstein, L'Oréal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-345/08: Helena Rubinstein SNC, L'Oréal SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Allergan, Inc.

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CN0100

62011CN0100

March 2, 2011
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

14.5.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/12

(Case C-100/11 P)

2011/C 145/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Helena Rubinstein SNC, L'Oréal SA (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Allergan, Inc.

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

annul the judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2010 in joined cases T-345/08 and T-357/08;

to dismiss the appeals filed by Allergan, Inc. against the decisions of the Office's Cancellation Division of 28 March 2007 in Case 1118 C (Helena Rubinstein SNC, BOTOLIST) and 4 April 2007 in Case 1120 C (L'Oréal SA, BOTOCYL);

to order the Office to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and before the General Court, as well as the costs of the proceedings before the Office's Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the contested judgment should be annulled on the following grounds:

That the General Court violated Article 52 (1) CTMR in conjunction with Article 8 (5) CTMR in deciding that the Office was justified in finding that the earlier marks relied on by Allergan, Inc. had reputation and that the use of the contested registrations would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctiveness or the reputation of the earlier marks.

That the General Court violated Article 115 CTMR in conjunction with Article 1 Rule 38 (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 in taking into account evidence which was not submitted in the language of the proceedings.

That the General Court violated Article 63 CTMR in reviewing and confirming the contested decisions according to erroneous legal standards.

That the General Court violated Articles 73 CTMR in deciding that the contested decisions were not vitiated by absence of sufficient reasons.

Language of the case: English

OJ L 011, p. 1.

OJ L 303, p. 1

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia