# C_2018013EN.01000201.xml

| 15.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/2

---

Appeal brought on 14 September 2017 by Allstate Insurance Company against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 5 July 2017 in Case T-3/16: Allstate Insurance Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-542/17 P)

(2018/C 013/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Allstate Insurance Company (represented by: G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwalt, R. Kunze, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2017 in case T-3/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2017 in case T-3/16;

| — | grant the action for annulment brought by the appellant against the Board of Appeal’s decision of 8 October 2015 in Case R 956/2015-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the action for annulment brought by the appellant against the Board of Appeal’s decision of 8 October 2015 in Case R 956/2015-2;

| — | order the respondent to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The appellant claims that the General Court infringed Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(2) EUTMR (1) by applying erroneous criteria in the assessment of the absolute ground of descriptiveness within the meaning of the aforementioned provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appellant claims that the General Court infringed Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(2) EUTMR (1) by applying erroneous criteria in the assessment of the absolute ground of descriptiveness within the meaning of the aforementioned provision.

1

| 2. | By not assessing the absolute ground of descriptiveness with regard to the actual goods and services seeking protection the General Court also failed to provide reasons for its decision and infringed Article 75 EUTMR. |
| --- | --- |

2.

By not assessing the absolute ground of descriptiveness with regard to the actual goods and services seeking protection the General Court also failed to provide reasons for its decision and infringed Article 75 EUTMR.

| 3. | Moreover, the General Court’s decision under review is based on a distortion of facts in as much as the Court did not asses the absolute grounds for refusal on the basis of the applied-for goods and services but on the basis of a presumed specification claim being the result of an interpretation, i.e. distortion, of the actual specification of goods and services. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Moreover, the General Court’s decision under review is based on a distortion of facts in as much as the Court did not asses the absolute grounds for refusal on the basis of the applied-for goods and services but on the basis of a presumed specification claim being the result of an interpretation, i.e. distortion, of the actual specification of goods and services.

| 4. | Had the General Court adhered to the fundamental principles of law, including the right to state reasons in support of a decision, it would have granted the action brought before it on account of the considerations made further below. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Had the General Court adhered to the fundamental principles of law, including the right to state reasons in support of a decision, it would have granted the action brought before it on account of the considerations made further below.

| 5. | The errors committed are of substantial legal nature. Accordingly, the appellant will set out the reasons why the General Court would have had to conclude that the pleas in law raised before it were well founded on account of an infringement of acknowledged principles of due process of law as well as in light of the pertinent provisions of the EUTMR based on the facts given before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The errors committed are of substantial legal nature. Accordingly, the appellant will set out the reasons why the General Court would have had to conclude that the pleas in law raised before it were well founded on account of an infringement of acknowledged principles of due process of law as well as in light of the pertinent provisions of the EUTMR based on the facts given before the Board of Appeal.

---

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

1

---