# C_2011179EN.01001302.xml

| 18.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/13 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Appeal brought on 27 April 2011 by Formula One Licensing BV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2011 in Case T-10/09: Formula One Licensing BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Global Sports Media Ltd

(Case C-196/11 P)

2011/C 179/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Formula One Licensing BV (represented by: K. Sandberg, B. Klingberg, Rechtsanwältinen)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Global Sports Media Ltd

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

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

| — | uphold the Appellant's application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 16 October 2008 in case R 7/2008-1 or, alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | order OHIM to and the Intervener to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Appellant, both at first instance and on appeal. |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant claims the infringement of Union Law, namely the erroneous application of Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No. 40/94( 1 ) (now No 207/09) as well as of Article 8 (5) of Regulation No 40/94, based on the following main arguments:

| 1. | The General Court violated Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 40/94 in the following regards:
1.1.
The General Court erred in law in its consideration of the distinctive character of the designation ‘F 1’. Firstly, the General Court violated the rule of established case-law that the distinctive character of a trade mark must be assessed by reference to the concrete goods and services covered by the mark. Secondly, the respective findings were based on distortion of the facts. Thirdly, the General Court failed to apply the rule of established case-law that the acquisition of the distinctive character of a mark may also be a result of its use as part of another registered trademark. Fourthly, the General Court's findings in this regard led to them applying an inadmissible de facto annulment of the Appellant's registered trademarks ‘F 1’ in standard typeset. 1.2.
The General Court erred in law in its consideration of the likelihood of confusion under Art. 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 40/94 both with regard to the opposition marks ‘F 1’ in standard typeset as well as the ‘F 1 Formula 1’ logotype. Firstly, it did not take into account the relevant factor of identity respectively high similarity in goods and services despite its own finding of a relevant degree of similarity in signs. Secondly, it focused on the factor of distinctiveness of the term ‘F 1’ to the exclusion of other relevant factors confirmed in established case-law. Thirdly, it failed to assess the similarity of the signs in accordance with the degree of resemblance between them. | 1.1. | The General Court erred in law in its consideration of the distinctive character of the designation ‘F 1’. Firstly, the General Court violated the rule of established case-law that the distinctive character of a trade mark must be assessed by reference to the concrete goods and services covered by the mark. Secondly, the respective findings were based on distortion of the facts. Thirdly, the General Court failed to apply the rule of established case-law that the acquisition of the distinctive character of a mark may also be a result of its use as part of another registered trademark. Fourthly, the General Court's findings in this regard led to them applying an inadmissible de facto annulment of the Appellant's registered trademarks ‘F 1’ in standard typeset. | 1.2. | The General Court erred in law in its consideration of the likelihood of confusion under Art. 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 40/94 both with regard to the opposition marks ‘F 1’ in standard typeset as well as the ‘F 1 Formula 1’ logotype. Firstly, it did not take into account the relevant factor of identity respectively high similarity in goods and services despite its own finding of a relevant degree of similarity in signs. Secondly, it focused on the factor of distinctiveness of the term ‘F 1’ to the exclusion of other relevant factors confirmed in established case-law. Thirdly, it failed to assess the similarity of the signs in accordance with the degree of resemblance between them. |
| ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 1.1. | The General Court erred in law in its consideration of the distinctive character of the designation ‘F 1’. Firstly, the General Court violated the rule of established case-law that the distinctive character of a trade mark must be assessed by reference to the concrete goods and services covered by the mark. Secondly, the respective findings were based on distortion of the facts. Thirdly, the General Court failed to apply the rule of established case-law that the acquisition of the distinctive character of a mark may also be a result of its use as part of another registered trademark. Fourthly, the General Court's findings in this regard led to them applying an inadmissible de facto annulment of the Appellant's registered trademarks ‘F 1’ in standard typeset. | | | | |
| 1.2. | The General Court erred in law in its consideration of the likelihood of confusion under Art. 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 40/94 both with regard to the opposition marks ‘F 1’ in standard typeset as well as the ‘F 1 Formula 1’ logotype. Firstly, it did not take into account the relevant factor of identity respectively high similarity in goods and services despite its own finding of a relevant degree of similarity in signs. Secondly, it focused on the factor of distinctiveness of the term ‘F 1’ to the exclusion of other relevant factors confirmed in established case-law. Thirdly, it failed to assess the similarity of the signs in accordance with the degree of resemblance between them. | | | | |

| 2. | The General Court violated Article 8 (5) of Regulation No 40/94 in the following regards:
2.1.
The General Court erroneously excluded the reputation of the Appellant's trademarks ‘F 1’ in standard typeset. 2.2.
The General Court furthermore erred in law in its consideration of the similarity in signs with regard to the opposition mark ‘F1 Formula 1’ logotype as it falsely assumed the absence of distinctiveness of the term ‘F 1’. | 2.1. | The General Court erroneously excluded the reputation of the Appellant's trademarks ‘F 1’ in standard typeset. | 2.2. | The General Court furthermore erred in law in its consideration of the similarity in signs with regard to the opposition mark ‘F1 Formula 1’ logotype as it falsely assumed the absence of distinctiveness of the term ‘F 1’. |
| ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 2.1. | The General Court erroneously excluded the reputation of the Appellant's trademarks ‘F 1’ in standard typeset. | | | | |
| 2.2. | The General Court furthermore erred in law in its consideration of the similarity in signs with regard to the opposition mark ‘F1 Formula 1’ logotype as it falsely assumed the absence of distinctiveness of the term ‘F 1’. | | | | |

---

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

OJ L 11, p. 1

---