# C_2013032EN.01001201.xml

| 2.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/12

---

Appeal brought on 4 December 2012 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 September 2012 in Case T-278/10 Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-558/12 P)

2013/C 32/17

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

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

—

Set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | Order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal challenges the judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2012 in Case T-278/10, by which that Court annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2010 (Case R 770/2009-1).

In support of its appeal the appellant puts forward three grounds of appeal:

| | First, it pleads infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) because the General Court annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal due to the latter’s failure to carry out an examination of the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks, although the General Court itself held that the signs at issue are different overall, so that there can, for that reason alone, be no likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

First, it pleads infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) because the General Court annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal due to the latter’s failure to carry out an examination of the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks, although the General Court itself held that the signs at issue are different overall, so that there can, for that reason alone, be no likelihood of confusion.

1

| | Secondly, the appellant submits that there is infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 as those provisions presuppose that Wesergold Getränkeindustrie should have pleaded the enhanced distinctiveness of the opposing marks, which however clearly does not correspond to the facts. Wesergold Getränkeindustrie had already abandoned the argument of enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use in the course of the opposition proceedings, at the latest, however, in the appeal proceedings. The General Court’s assertion to the contrary, that Wesergold Getränkeindustrie still claimed in the appeal proceedings that there was enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use, is an obvious distortion of the facts, which requires no new evidence. |
| --- | --- |

Secondly, the appellant submits that there is infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 as those provisions presuppose that Wesergold Getränkeindustrie should have pleaded the enhanced distinctiveness of the opposing marks, which however clearly does not correspond to the facts. Wesergold Getränkeindustrie had already abandoned the argument of enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use in the course of the opposition proceedings, at the latest, however, in the appeal proceedings. The General Court’s assertion to the contrary, that Wesergold Getränkeindustrie still claimed in the appeal proceedings that there was enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use, is an obvious distortion of the facts, which requires no new evidence.

| | Thirdly, the judgment is contrary to the settled case-law according to which an error cannot result in the annulment of a decision if that error clearly has no effects on the decision. The issue of enhanced distinctiveness is irrelevant to the decision not only because of the dissimilarity which the General Court expressly found to exist between the signs, but also because Wesergold Getränkeindustrie had already, by the documents submitted in the opposition proceedings, prima facie adduced no evidence of enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use. The General Court should have carried out a short examination as to the validity of that obviously inadequate evidence, which was submitted on 10 March 2008, in order to prevent an unnecessary delay in the proceedings and an unnecessary increase in the costs thereof. |
| --- | --- |

Thirdly, the judgment is contrary to the settled case-law according to which an error cannot result in the annulment of a decision if that error clearly has no effects on the decision. The issue of enhanced distinctiveness is irrelevant to the decision not only because of the dissimilarity which the General Court expressly found to exist between the signs, but also because Wesergold Getränkeindustrie had already, by the documents submitted in the opposition proceedings, prima facie adduced no evidence of enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use. The General Court should have carried out a short examination as to the validity of that obviously inadequate evidence, which was submitted on 10 March 2008, in order to prevent an unnecessary delay in the proceedings and an unnecessary increase in the costs thereof.

prima facie

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

1

---