# C_2012073EN.01002301.xml

| 10.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/23

---

Appeal brought on 11 January 2012 by Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2011 in Case T-313/10: Three-N-Products Private Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-14/12 P)

2012/C 73/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah (represented by: M. Chapple, Barrister)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Three-N-Products Private Ltd.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should order that:

| — | the Judgment be annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Judgment be annulled;

| — | the Decision be affirmed; |
| --- | --- |

—

the Decision be affirmed;

| — | the CTM Application be allowed to proceed to registration. |
| --- | --- |

—

the CTM Application be allowed to proceed to registration.

| — | the Respondent pays to the Appellants the costs incurred by the Appellants in connection with this Appeal, the hearing before the General Court and the Decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Respondent pays to the Appellants the costs incurred by the Appellants in connection with this Appeal, the hearing before the General Court and the Decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants respectfully submit that the General Court erred as a matter of law in the following respects:

| | The General Court wrongly decided that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade mark in suit and the two earlier registered trade marks upon which the Respondent relies (one a word mark of AYUR and the other figurative mark containing the word AYUR), given the weak distinctive character of the earlier marks and the low overall similarity between the signs at issue; |
| --- | --- |

The General Court wrongly decided that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade mark in suit and the two earlier registered trade marks upon which the Respondent relies (one a word mark of AYUR and the other figurative mark containing the word AYUR), given the weak distinctive character of the earlier marks and the low overall similarity between the signs at issue;

| | In particular the General Court wrongly decided that although the letters U and I added respectively in the middle and at the end of the word AYUR, give difference to the trade mark in suit, such difference is ‘not such as to attract the attention of the consumer’; |
| --- | --- |

In particular the General Court wrongly decided that although the letters U and I added respectively in the middle and at the end of the word AYUR, give difference to the trade mark in suit, such difference is ‘not such as to attract the attention of the consumer’;

not such as to attract the attention of the consumer

| | Also in particular the General court wrongly decided that there were no significant and substantial visual, phonetic and conceptual differences between the signs at issue. |
| --- | --- |

Also in particular the General court wrongly decided that there were no significant and substantial visual, phonetic and conceptual differences between the signs at issue.

---