- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-447/10 P: Appeal brought on 15 September 2010 by Grain Millers, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 July 2010 in Case T-430/08: Grain Millers, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010CN0447
62010CN0447
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
6.11.2010
Official Journal of the European Union
C 301/18
—
(Case C-447/10 P)
()
2010/C 301/26
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Grain Millers, Inc. (represented by: L.-E. Ström, K. Martinsson, advokater)
Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Grain Millers GmbH & Co. KG
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
The case concerns the issue of whether Grain Millers GmbH & KG has provided sufficient evidence of use of the sign GRAIN MILLERS to fulfil the conditions in Article 8 (4) of the Regulation (1) so that said sign constitutes a bar to the Appellant's CTM application no. 003650256 GRAIN MILLERS.
The General Court has previously, in the case Alberto Jorge Moreira da Fonsecal OHIM — General Optica, T-318/06 to T-321/06, paragraphs 33-35, 24 March 2009 addressed the interpretation of the purpose of the condition ‘of more than mere local significance’ found in Article 8(4) of the Regulation, namely to restrict the possibilities of conflict to those which may exist with signs which are truly significant and that this should be assessed not only from geographical dimension but also from an economical dimension of the sign's significance, which is assessed in the light of the length of time for which it has fulfilled its function in the course of trade and the degree to which it has been used. However, in the appealed decision the General Court has not adopted this approach, and there is nothing that suggests the General Court even was aware of the principles laid down in that case.
The applicant submits that the General Court has erroneously held that Article 8(4) does not require proof of genuine use of the sign in support of the opposition as is required by Article 43(2) of the Regulation.
The General Court has erroneously set aside previous case law regarding assessment of evidence and the requisite standard of proof.
—
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark
OJ L 11, p. 1
—