# C_2017347EN.01000201.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/2

---

Appeal brought on 31 May 2017 by Windrush Aka LLP against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2017 in Case T-336/15: Windrush Aka LLP v EUIPO

(Case C-325/17 P)

(2017/C 347/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Windrush Aka LLP (represented by: S. Britton, Solicitor, S. Malynicz QC, S. Tregear, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Jerry Dammers

Other parties 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 in Case T-366/15 dated 22 March 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the General Court in Case T-366/15 dated 22 March 2017;

| — | order the EUIPO and Mr Jerry Dammers (the EUTM proprietor) to pay their own costs and pay those of the appellant |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EUIPO and Mr Jerry Dammers (the EUTM proprietor) to pay their own costs and pay those of the appellant

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1) | First, the General Court distorted the evidence and incorrectly assessed the facts, and its decision contains a substantive inaccuracy in the findings attributable to the documents submitted to it. |
| --- | --- |

1)

First, the General Court distorted the evidence and incorrectly assessed the facts, and its decision contains a substantive inaccuracy in the findings attributable to the documents submitted to it.

| 2) | Secondly, the General Court breached Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 4 March 2015 (OJ 2015, L 105, p. 1), by declining to hold a hearing in the light of the abandonment by the EUTM proprietor of material parts of its purported evidence of use of the contested EUTM following the hearing. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Secondly, the General Court breached Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 4 March 2015 (OJ 2015, L 105, p. 1), by declining to hold a hearing in the light of the abandonment by the EUTM proprietor of material parts of its purported evidence of use of the contested EUTM following the hearing.

| 3) | Thirdly, the General Court wrongly held that the appellant raised a new plea for the first time at the hearing. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Thirdly, the General Court wrongly held that the appellant raised a new plea for the first time at the hearing.

| 4) | Fourthly, the General Court failed to appreciate the effect in law of an assignment of a right to a name i.e. that the assignment gives no further right to the assignor (i.e., the EUTM proprietor) to grant or refuse consent to the use of the name (i.e., the contested EUTM), with the result that there is no further consent under Union law following the date of the assignment. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Fourthly, the General Court failed to appreciate the effect in law of an assignment of a right to a name i.e. that the assignment gives no further right to the assignor (i.e., the EUTM proprietor) to grant or refuse consent to the use of the name (i.e., the contested EUTM), with the result that there is no further consent under Union law following the date of the assignment.

---