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
—
Appeal brought on 3 June 2014 by Debonair Trading Internacional Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 3 April 2014 in Case T-356/12: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Case C-270/14 P)
2014/C 303/18
Language of the case: English
Appellant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)
Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
The appellant claims that the Court should:
1)Set aside paragraph 2 of the Decision dismissing the action as to the remainder;
2)Remit the case to the General Court for further consideration with direction as to the applicable law;
3)Order the Respondent to pay the costs both of the proceedings before the General Court and those before the Court of Justice.
The Appellant relies on a single plea in law, namely infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR (1). In summary, it contends that the General Court erred by purporting to limit the conditions in which a likelihood of confusion may arise between a ‘family’ of trade marks and a later trade mark. Alternatively the Appellant contends that the General Court failed to carry out a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion taking into account all relevant factors.
Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark,
OJ L 78, p. 1
—