# C_2010179EN.01002601.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/26

---

Appeal brought on 6 May 2010 by Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2010 in Case T-321/07: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-216/10 P)

(2010/C 179/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); Applus Servicios Tecnológicos, SL

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2010 in Case T-321/07 Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH v. OHIM — Applus Servicios Tecnológicos, SL (The Judgement under Appeal), by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trademarks & Designs) (OHIM) of 7 June 2007 upholding the decision of the Opposition Division, by which the opposition directed against Community trademark application 002 933 356 was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2010 in Case T-321/07 Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH v. OHIM — Applus Servicios Tecnológicos, SL (The Judgement under Appeal), by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trademarks & Designs) (OHIM) of 7 June 2007 upholding the decision of the Opposition Division, by which the opposition directed against Community trademark application 002 933 356 was rejected;

| — | following the conclusion of the written proceedings, schedule an oral hearing before the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

—

following the conclusion of the written proceedings, schedule an oral hearing before the Court of Justice;

| — | order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment of the General Court should be set aside on the following grounds:

| — | the General Court incorrectly upheld the Board of Appeal's assessment pertaining to the criteria of likelihood of confusion pursuant to article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trademark Regulation (1) (CTMR); |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court incorrectly upheld the Board of Appeal's assessment pertaining to the criteria of likelihood of confusion pursuant to article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trademark Regulation (1) (CTMR);

| — | the General Court was incorrect in not dealing with the appellant's opposition based upon article 8(5) CTMR; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court was incorrect in not dealing with the appellant's opposition based upon article 8(5) CTMR;

| — | the General Court infringed art 75 CTMR when it held that the Board of Appeal was entitled not to conduct a full examination of the appellant's remaining arguments, in particular those pertaining to the distinctiveness of the appellant's prior trademark registration, ‘for reasons of economy of procedure’; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court infringed art 75 CTMR when it held that the Board of Appeal was entitled not to conduct a full examination of the appellant's remaining arguments, in particular those pertaining to the distinctiveness of the appellant's prior trademark registration, ‘for reasons of economy of procedure’;

| — | the judgment under appeal breaches article 76 CTMR; |
| --- | --- |

—

the judgment under appeal breaches article 76 CTMR;

| — | the General Court was wrong when it accepted that the fact that OHIM did not notify the appellant of the change in the owner of the Community Trademark applications, thus depriving it of the opportunity to comment on the change of party, did not give rise to a serious breach of the appellant's right to a fair hearing; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court was wrong when it accepted that the fact that OHIM did not notify the appellant of the change in the owner of the Community Trademark applications, thus depriving it of the opportunity to comment on the change of party, did not give rise to a serious breach of the appellant's right to a fair hearing;

| — | the General Court issued an Order for costs which was not in compliance with the pertinent provisions of European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court issued an Order for costs which was not in compliance with the pertinent provisions of European Union law.

---

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

OJ L 11, p. 1

---