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-399/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2015 by Vichy Catalán, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-302/15 Vichy Catalán v OHIM — Hijos de Rivera (Fuente Estrella)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CN0399

62015CN0399

July 23, 2015
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

7.12.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/13

(Case C-399/15 P)

(2015/C 406/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Vichy Catalán, S.A. (represented by: R. Bercovitz Álvarez, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Hijos de Rivera (Fuente Estrella)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Annul the order under appeal, replacing it with a declaration that the application brought by the appellant in Case T-302/15 before the General Court is admissible.

Order any parties that may appear to defend order under appeal to pay the costs of the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The order of the General Court (Third Chamber) in which the application was dismissed as inadmissible is unlawful for the following reasons:

1.Infringement of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (no statute-barring when the existence of unforeseeable circumstances, or of force majeure, is proved), in two respects;

a.the order was made without giving sufficient time for the appellant to prove the existence of unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure that delayed the sending of the hard copy of the application. That has deprived the appellant of the right to a fair hearing; and

b.there were unforeseeable circumstances in the present case.

2.Incorrect interpretation of Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure.

3.Retroactive application, to the detriment of the appellant, of new provisions of the Rules of Procedure, which came into force on 1 July 2015, to situations which had to be subject to the previous Rules of Procedure.

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