22.5.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/6

—

(Case C-686/16 P)

(2017/C 161/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Meissen Keramik GmbH (represented by: M. Vohwinkel and Dr M. Bagh, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 October 2016 (T-776/15);

—annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 October 2015 (Case R 0531/2015-1);

—annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 January 2015;

—order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs of all the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal is based on a misinterpretation of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in conjunction with an infringement of Article 135(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

The basis for the claim that the Rules of Procedure were infringed is that the General Court did not base its judgment on the understanding of the word element of the trade mark which had been established in the Board of Appeal’s decision, but applied its own understanding of that word element and thus changed the subject-matter of the proceedings.

The basis for the claim that Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 was misinterpreted is that the General Court regards an indication of the geographical origin of a specific type of product that is designated by means of its main constituent material (Meissen Keramik) as descriptive even in relation to goods which contain components — no matter how insignificant — consisting of that material or goods which can be associated with goods of the type designated.

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

—