- 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-62/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2015 by DTL Corporación, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-176/13 DTL Corporación v OHIM
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CN0062
62015CN0062
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 146/14
—
(Case C-62/15 P)
(2015/C 146/22)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Appellant: DTL Corporación, S.L. (represented by: A. Zuazo Araluze, lawyer)
Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—annul in part, in respect of all the goods and services in Classes 9 and 37, the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 24 January 2013 in Case R 661/2012-4 dismissing the appeal brought against the rejection of the application for Community trade mark No 8830821 ‘Generia’;
—order OHIM and the other parties to the proceedings who oppose this appeal to pay the costs of this appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Infringement of EU law by the General Court: The Fourth Board of Appeal changed, in its decision of 24 January 2013 in Case R 661/2012-4, the grounds for the decision of the Opposition Division for rejecting Community trade mark No 8830821 ‘Generia’ in respect of Classes 9 and 37. The Opposition Division had based that rejection on the similarity of the goods and services in Classes 9 and 37 with the goods of the opposing mark in Class 7. For its part, the Board of Appeal upheld the rejection, but on the ground of the similarity of the goods and services in Classes 9 and 37 with the services of the opposing mark in Class 40. In so doing, the Board of Appeal infringed Article 64(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark because the services of the opposing mark in Class 40 had never been put forward in opposition to the goods and services of the trade mark applied for in Classes 9 and 37 (although they were put forward against the services in other classes). In addition, the decision infringed Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark since the party now appealing was not invited to submit observations on that change to the grounds. The judgment under appeal maintains that the proceedings were legally correct, thereby infringing EU law (Articles 64(1) and 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark).
Language of the case: Spanish
(1) OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
—