# C_2015262EN.01000301.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/3

---

Appeal brought on 4 May 2015 by Nissan Jidosha KK against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2015 in Case T-572/12: Nissan Jidosha KK v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-207/15 P)

(2015/C 262/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Nissan Jidosha KK (represented by: B. Brandreth, barrister, D. Cañadas Arcas, abogada)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the decision of the General Court of 4 March 2015 (Case T-572/12); |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the decision of the General Court of 4 March 2015 (Case T-572/12);

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 6 September 2012 (Case R 2469/2011-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 6 September 2012 (Case R 2469/2011-1);

| — | Order OHIM to pay the Appellant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the Appellant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 47 of Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), (‘CTMR’). In particular, it erred in holding that Article 47 does not permit sequential requests for renewal. Incidental to its erroneous interpretation of Art 47 CTMR the General Court erred in its interpretation of Art 48 CTMR in holding that it applied only to the sign of the Community Trade Mark.

1

| a. | The interpretation of Art 47(3) by the General Court is inconsistent. |
| --- | --- |

a.

The interpretation of Art 47(3) by the General Court is inconsistent.

| b. | The interpretation of Art 47(3) by the General Court calls for de facto surrender of part of the mark in terms contrary to those provided for under Art 50 CTMR. |
| --- | --- |

b.

The interpretation of Art 47(3) by the General Court calls for de facto surrender of part of the mark in terms contrary to those provided for under Art 50 CTMR.

de facto

| c. | The requirement for legal certainty called for by the General Court arises from the actions taken by OHIM. It is not inherent to the interpretation of Art 47(3) given by the General Court and legal certainty is equally possible under the Appellant’s interpretation. In the present case, the actions of OHIM were carried out on the basis that the mark had been surrendered, which the General Court held was an error of law. |
| --- | --- |

c.

The requirement for legal certainty called for by the General Court arises from the actions taken by OHIM. It is not inherent to the interpretation of Art 47(3) given by the General Court and legal certainty is equally possible under the Appellant’s interpretation. In the present case, the actions of OHIM were carried out on the basis that the mark had been surrendered, which the General Court held was an error of law.

| d. | The interpretation of Art 47(3) advanced by the Appellant is not precluded by the wording of the Article. |
| --- | --- |

d.

The interpretation of Art 47(3) advanced by the Appellant is not precluded by the wording of the Article.

| e. | The interpretation of Art 48 wrongly concludes that Article is concerned only with the sign of which the Community trade mark is composed. |
| --- | --- |

e.

The interpretation of Art 48 wrongly concludes that Article is concerned only with the sign of which the Community trade mark is composed.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

1

OJ L 78, p. 1

---