23.3.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/4

—

(Case C-598/14 P)

(2015/C 096/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Gilbert Szajner, Forge de Laguiole

Form of order sought

—set aside the judgment under appeal,

—order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by the Office.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forwards to grounds in support of its appeal, namely, the infringement of Article 65 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (1) and the infringement of Article 8(4) of that regulation read in conjunction with Article L 711-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code.

According to the appellant, the General Court may annul or amend the decision only where, at the time it was adopted, it was vitiated by one of the grounds for annulment or amendment set out in Article 65(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. The General Court infringed Article 65(2) of that regulation by misconstruing the scope of its review of legality, which must be restricted to matters of law (including the case-law existing at the time when the decision was adopted) and of fact put forward before the Board of Appeal. The General Court failed to establish that the Board of Appeal had committed an error at the time when the contested decision was adopted. The General Court substituted its own assessment for that of the Board of Appeal and carried out an assessment of the judgment of the French Court of Cassation of 10 July 2012 about which that Board was unable to take a position.

Furthermore, the General Court distorted the judgment of the French Court of Cassation of 10 July 2012 by declaring that it was ‘devoid of any ambiguity regarding the scope of protection afforded to a company name and which may be applied generally’ and by granting it a scope that it clearly did not have in relation to the other documents in the file, in the context of Article L 711-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code.

Finally, the General Court committed an error by assessing the areas of activity of Forge de Laguiole in the light of the criteria of trade mark law. The General Court should have assessed the areas of activity of Forge de Laguiole with reference to the purpose and use of the goods sold by that company, and not only in the light of the criterion of the nature of the product.

(1) OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

—

* * *