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-552/09 P: Appeal brought on 24 December 2009 by Ferrero SpA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 October 2009 in Case T-140/08: Ferrero SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Tirol Milch reg.Gen.mbH Innsbruck

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009CN0552

62009CN0552

December 24, 2009
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

27.3.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/11

(Case C-552/09 P)

2010/C 80/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ferrero SpA (represented by: F. Jacobacci, avvocato, C. Gielen and H.M.H. Speyart, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Tirol Milch reg.Gen.mbH Innsbruck

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

set aside the judgment under appeal;

uphold Ferrero's application for annulment of the contested decision or, alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and

order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of Ferrero, both in first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (‘CFI’) violated the system of Article 8 of Regulation No 40/94 (1) in carrying out a single factual assessment of similarity with implications both under Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5), even though both provisions have entirely distinct sets of tests;

the CFI erred in law in finding that it need not take into account the reputation of the earlier trade marks in finding that the conditions for the applicability of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) were not met;

the CFI erred in law or distorted the facts submitted to it in applying erroneous, unfounded and unreasoned rules of evidence in assessing similarity;

the CFI erred in law in failing to take into proper account that the earlier trade marks contain verbal trade marks and that the challenged trade mark is figurative; and

the CFI erred in law in failing to take into proper account the existence of a family of trade marks.

Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 11, 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