- 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-622/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Castel Frères SAS against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-320/10: Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0622
62013CN0622
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
25.1.2014
Official Journal of the European Union
C 24/16
—
(Case C-622/13 P)
2014/C 24/29
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Castel Frères SAS (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)
Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—annul the Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 in Case T-320/10,
—dismiss the application for annulment brought by Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2010 in Case R 962/2009-2,
—order the Office and the Other Party to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and this Court.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellant claims that the General Court committed legal error in rejecting the Appellant's claim that the application to the General Court should have been dismissed as inadmissible because of the ‘abus de droit’ committed by the Other Party. The Appellant's claim is based on a distortion of the evidence. The claim is also based on a misinterpretation of the role of the abuse of rights in proceedings before European Union institutions. The claim is also based on a failure to give reasons for the decision because the General Court failed to give any reasons for the dismissal of the Appellant's claim.
The Appellant further claims that the General Court violated Article 7 (1) (c) CTMR (1) in that it applied erroneous legal criteria in determining that the Appellant's mark was improperly registered.
Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
OJ L 78, p. 1
—