- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 September 2012. # Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) - Community word mark BRIGHTON - Opposition proceedings - Interpretation of the provisions of national law on relative grounds for refusal of registration. # Case C-624/11 P.
ECLI:EU:C:2012:598
62011CO0624
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
(Case C-624/11 P)
Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) — Community word mark BRIGHTON — Opposition proceedings — Interpretation of the provisions of national law on relative grounds for refusal of registration
3. Appeal — Grounds — Ground raised for the first time on appeal — Not admissible (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 113(2)) (see para. 53)
Re:
Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 September 2011 in Case T-403/10 Brighton Collectibles v OHIM — Felmar, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2010 (Case R 408/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Brighton Collectibles, Inc. and Felmar — Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Community word mark BRIGHTON — Opposition proceedings based on earlier national word and figurative marks — Failure to give sufficient reasons with regard to the national laws relied upon
Operative part
1.The appeal is dismissed.