Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/12

—

Appeal brought on 25 November 2014 by Debonair Trading Internacional Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2014 in Case T-341/13: Groupe Léa Nature SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-537/14 P)

(2015/C 118/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (represented by: D. Selden, advocate, T. Alkin, barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Groupe Léa Nature SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—Set aside the decision annulling the decision of the Bord of Appeal;

—Remit the case to the General Court for further consideration with a direction that the marks in issue are similar;

—Order the Respondent to pay the costs both of the proceedings before the General Court and those before the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.The Appellant relies on two pleas in law, namely infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR (1). In summary the appellant submits that the General Court failed to apply settled case law in its analysis of the marks in issue with the result that it wrongly concluded that the marks are entirely dissimilar.

2.First, having found the marks phonetically similar by virtue of the common element ‘so’, the General Court should have concluded that they were similar overall, at least to that extent. Its conclusion that they were dissimilar, despite the common phonetic element, was the result of a failure to apply settled case law on the nature and degree of similarity required for the application of Article 8(1)(b)/8(5).

3.Secondly, having held the marks to be phonetically similar, the General Court should have concluded that they were also visually similar, for essentially similar reasons (and therefore a fortiori similar within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b)/8(5)). Its conclusion that they were visually dissimilar, despite the common visual element ‘so’, was the result of a failure to apply settled case law when analyzing the visual impact of the ‘so’ element within the marks.

Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, p. 1.

—