# C_2011130EN.01001401.xml

| 30.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/14 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Appeal brought on 2 March 2011 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 16 December 2010 in Case T-513/09 José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel

(Case C-102/11 P)

2011/C 130/25

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. and Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| - | ------------------------------------ |

| — | deliver a new judgment on the merits of the case, dismissing the action brought against the contested decision, or refer the case back to the General Court; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

OHIM submits that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the ground that the General Court infringed Article 61 CDR.( 1 ) In support of that plea, OHIM puts forward the reasons set out below, which may be summarised as follows:

| (a) | By substituting its assessment of the facts for that of the Board of Appeal, without having found any ‘manifest errors of assessment’, the General Court went beyond what Article 61 CDR permits in relation to Community designs. Instead of reviewing the lawfulness of the decision, the General Court exercised the same jurisdiction as that reserved to the Board of Appeal under Article 60 CDR. |
| --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| (b) | The General Court infringed Article 25(1)(c) CDR, together with Article 6 CDR, in that it:
—
applied an incorrect test in examining whether the designs compared produce a different overall impression on informed users. The error of law arises from the fact that the General Court examined whether the similarities and differences would be ‘preserved in the memory’ of an informed user (see paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgement under appeal). However, the comparison cannot be based on the memory of the user. As this case involves designs — and not trade marks — the correct test consists in determining whether the similarities and differences between the designs produce a different overall impression when an informed user makes a direct comparison of the designs. —
analysed perception only from the point of view of one section of the relevant public and did not give any reasons at all concerning the perception of users of some of the goods in question, namely, ‘printed material, including advertising material’. | — | applied an incorrect test in examining whether the designs compared produce a different overall impression on informed users. The error of law arises from the fact that the General Court examined whether the similarities and differences would be ‘preserved in the memory’ of an informed user (see paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgement under appeal). However, the comparison cannot be based on the memory of the user. As this case involves designs — and not trade marks — the correct test consists in determining whether the similarities and differences between the designs produce a different overall impression when an informed user makes a direct comparison of the designs. | — | analysed perception only from the point of view of one section of the relevant public and did not give any reasons at all concerning the perception of users of some of the goods in question, namely, ‘printed material, including advertising material’. |
| --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | applied an incorrect test in examining whether the designs compared produce a different overall impression on informed users. The error of law arises from the fact that the General Court examined whether the similarities and differences would be ‘preserved in the memory’ of an informed user (see paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgement under appeal). However, the comparison cannot be based on the memory of the user. As this case involves designs — and not trade marks — the correct test consists in determining whether the similarities and differences between the designs produce a different overall impression when an informed user makes a direct comparison of the designs. | | | | |
| — | analysed perception only from the point of view of one section of the relevant public and did not give any reasons at all concerning the perception of users of some of the goods in question, namely, ‘printed material, including advertising material’. | | | | |

---

( 1 )  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).

---