# C_2013325EN.01001701.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/17

---

Appeal brought on 16 September 2013 by GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2013 in Case T-206/12 GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-495/13 P)

2013/C 325/29

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 in Case T-206/12 and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 in Case R 411/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 in Case T-206/12 and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 in Case R 411/2011-1;

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is against the judgment of the General Court, by which it dismissed the appellant’s claim for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 1 March 2012 concerning opposition proceedings between Villiger Söhne GmbH and GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH.

The appellant puts forward a single plea in law, namely misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009. (1)

1

In support of that plea, the appellant alleges that:

| | The General Court misinterpreted the term ‘identity of the goods’ because it equated the goods ‘cigars’ with the generic term ‘tobacco products’. By so doing, the General Court unduly extended the scope of the opposing mark. |
| --- | --- |

The General Court misinterpreted the term ‘identity of the goods’ because it equated the goods ‘cigars’ with the generic term ‘tobacco products’. By so doing, the General Court unduly extended the scope of the opposing mark.

| | The General Court misinterpreted the term ‘similarity of the goods’ because in assessing the similarity of the goods it also should not have sweepingly considered the individual goods ‘cigars’ to be similar to the generic term ‘smokers’ articles’. |
| --- | --- |

The General Court misinterpreted the term ‘similarity of the goods’ because in assessing the similarity of the goods it also should not have sweepingly considered the individual goods ‘cigars’ to be similar to the generic term ‘smokers’ articles’.

| | When comparing the signs, the General Court did not correctly apply the global assessment theory because it sweepingly compared the components ‘LIBERTAD’ and ‘LIBERTE’ and in so doing took no account of all the other components of the marks. |
| --- | --- |

When comparing the signs, the General Court did not correctly apply the global assessment theory because it sweepingly compared the components ‘LIBERTAD’ and ‘LIBERTE’ and in so doing took no account of all the other components of the marks.

| | In particular, by correctly applying the global assessment theory the General Court should have attributed more significance to several other components of the marks at issue, including the colour combination of the mark at issue and the ‘LA’ label of the opposing mark. |
| --- | --- |

In particular, by correctly applying the global assessment theory the General Court should have attributed more significance to several other components of the marks at issue, including the colour combination of the mark at issue and the ‘LA’ label of the opposing mark.

| | The General Court also misapplied the principles established by the Court of Justice on conceptual similarity since it did not sufficiently take into account the different languages of the marks. |
| --- | --- |

The General Court also misapplied the principles established by the Court of Justice on conceptual similarity since it did not sufficiently take into account the different languages of the marks.

| | Overall, the General Court thereby came to a wrong conclusion. |
| --- | --- |

Overall, the General Court thereby came to a wrong conclusion.

---

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

1

---