- 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-334/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 June 2011 by Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 April 2011 in Case T-466/08: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CN0334
62011CN0334
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
24.9.2011
Official Journal of the European Union
C 282/4
—
(Case C-334/11 P)
2011/C 282/08
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, J. Pagenberg, Rechtsanwälte)
Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH
Form of order sought
The appellant requests the Court of Justice to decide as follows:
—The judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2011 in Case T-466/08 an the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of 29 July 2008 in Case R 1796/2007-1 are annulled.
—The costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office, before the General Court and before this court shall be borne by the Office and by the Intervener.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellant claims that the contested judgment must be annulled because the General Court violated Article 43 (2) and (3) CTMR and committed legal error in deciding that in the contested case the five-year period following registration within which the earlier German mark FOCUS on which the opposition against the CTM application for ACNO FOCUS was based must be put to genuine use did not begin to run until 13 January 2004.
The Appellant does not challenge the finding of likelihood of confusion. While the Appellant disagrees with the finding, the Appellant considers that the General Court did not commit any error of law.
—