# C_2013313EN.01001303.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/13

---

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-78/12 GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-496/13 P)

2013/C 313/24

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 decision of the General Court of 3 July 2013 in Case T-78/12 and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2011 in Case R 2109/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the decision of the General Court of 3 July 2013 in Case T-78/12 and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2011 in Case R 2109/2010-1;

| — | Order the respondent to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the respondent to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant puts forward as its single ground of appeal the incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) and failure to have regard to the rules of evidence in the application of that provision.

1

In support of that ground of appeal the appellant submits:

| | In comparing the signs the General Court did not correctly apply the global assessment doctrine because it made a sweeping comparison of the elements ‘LIBERTAD’ and ‘LIBERTE’ and in doing so left out all the other elements of the marks. |
| --- | --- |

In comparing the signs the General Court did not correctly apply the global assessment doctrine because it made a sweeping comparison of the elements ‘LIBERTAD’ and ‘LIBERTE’ and in doing so left out all the other elements of the marks.

| | In particular, the General Court would, if it had applied the global assessment doctrine correctly, have had to attach more importance to some of the other elements of the marks at issue, inter alia the combination of colours in the disputed mark and the opposing mark and the description ‘LA’ in the opposing mark and ‘brunes’ in the disputed mark. |
| --- | --- |

In particular, the General Court would, if it had applied the global assessment doctrine correctly, have had to attach more importance to some of the other elements of the marks at issue, inter alia the combination of colours in the disputed mark and the opposing mark and the description ‘LA’ in the opposing mark and ‘brunes’ in the disputed mark.

| | In addition, the General Court incorrectly applied the principles set out by the Court of Justice in respect of conceptual similarity as it did not take sufficient account of the different languages of the marks. |
| --- | --- |

In addition, the General Court incorrectly applied the principles set out by the Court of Justice in respect of conceptual similarity as it did not take sufficient account of the different languages of the marks.

| | Furthermore, the General Court failed to have regard to the rules of evidence set out in the Rules of Procedure in that it made assumptions with regard to the pronunciation of the mark ‘LA LIBERTAD’ without evidence and based the decision on them. |
| --- | --- |

Furthermore, the General Court failed to have regard to the rules of evidence set out in the Rules of Procedure in that it made assumptions with regard to the pronunciation of the mark ‘LA LIBERTAD’ without evidence and based the decision on them.

| | All in all, the General Court thus came to an incorrect conclusion. |
| --- | --- |

All in all, the General Court thus came to an incorrect conclusion.

---

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

1

---