EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-88/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2011 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-497/09 LG Electronics v OHIM (KOMPRESSOR PLUS)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CN0088

62011CN0088

February 25, 2011
With Google you find a lot.
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

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/8

(Case C-88/11 P)

(2011/C 120/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: LG Electronics, Inc. (represented by J. Blanchard, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Form of order sought

declare the appeal admissible;

set aside the judgment of the Second Chamber of the General Court of 16 December 2010;

set aside in part the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2009 in so far as it dismissed in part the appeal brought by LG Electronics against the decision of 5 February 2009 refusing the application for registration of Community trade mark No 007282924 in so far as it designated ‘electric vacuum cleaners’;

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant pleads an infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark. (<span class="super">1</span>)

The appellant observes, first, that the General Court relied on new facts, communicated for the first time by OHIM before the Court, which had not been relied on before the Board of Appeal.

The appellant submits, second, that the General Court erred by distorting the facts and evidence submitted to it, leading to conclude wrongly that vacuum cleaners could be used as compressors.

Finally, it observes that, since vacuum cleaners do not in any event contain a compressor and cannot be used as compressors, the mark KOMPRESSOR PLUS cannot in any case be regarded as consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the services, or other characteristics of the goods or service.

Language of the case: French

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

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia