- 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
Case C-383/12 P: Appeal brought on 8 August 2012 by Environmental Manufacturing LLP against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2012 in Case T-570/10: Environmental Manufacturing LLP v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012CN0383
62012CN0383
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
27.10.2012
Official Journal of the European Union
C 331/13
—
(Case C-383/12)
(2012/C 331/21)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, M. Atkins, Solicitor, K. Shadbolt, Trade Mark Attorney)
Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Société Elmar Wolf
Form of order sought
The appellant seeks the following order:
1.The judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-570/10 dated 22 May 2012 shall be set aside and the Court shall give final judgment in the matter.
2.The Office and intervener shall bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Following the Court of Justice's judgment in Case C-252/07 Intel Corporation (2008) ECR I-8823, proof that the use of the later mark is or would be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark requires evidence of a change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer of the goods or services for which the earlier mark was registered consequent on the use of the later mark, or a serious likelihood that such a change will occur in the future. The General Court erroneously did not require such proof, instead concluding that it is sufficient merely if the earlier mark's ability to identify the goods or services for which it is registered and used as coming from the proprietor of that mark is weakened because use of the later mark leads to dispersion of the identity and hold upon the public mind of the earlier mark.
—