- 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-448/13 P: Appeal brought on 7 August 2013 by Delphi Technologies, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2013 in Case T-515/11: Delphi Technologies, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0448
62013CN0448
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
26.10.2013
Official Journal of the European Union
C 313/10
—
(Case C-448/13 P)
2013/C 313/19
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Delphi Technologies, Inc. (represented by: C. Albrecht, J. Heumann, Rechtsanwälte)
Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the decision T-515/11 of the General Court dated 6 June 2013, annul the contested decision as far as it rejected the appeal brought by the appellant against the examiner’s decision of 25 August 2010 and order that the OHIM shall pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appeal is directed against the decision T-515/11 of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union dismissing an action for annulment against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal confirming the rejection of the CTM application ‘INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD’.
The appeal is based on three pleas:
1.The General Court violated Article 7 (1) (b) CTMR (1) by not determining the relevant public and their degree of awareness properly. The goods are exclusively directed at professionals who have a high degree of awareness with respect to promotional slogans.
2.The General Court further violated Article 7 (1) (b) CTMR by applying too strict a test in assessing whether the mark applied for had a distinctive character. In particular, the General Court misunderstood the guidelines laid down in the more recent case law, and, in particular, in Case C-398/08 P, Audi v OHIM.
3.Thirdly the General Court violated the general principles of equal treatment and sound administration, which are basic principles for the proper administration of the EU. The fact that the OHIM registered slogans with an identical structure containing the word ‘INNOVATION’ in the past should be taken into account, even though the previous decisions are not binding.
The applicant submits that the contested decision should, therefore, be set aside and that the inherent distinctiveness of the slogan ‘INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD’ should be affirmed.
Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 27 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
OJ L 78, p. 1
—
* * *