Order — ECLI:EU:C:2011:149
Date: 2011-03-14
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Appeal brought on 23 July 2010 by Ravensburger AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19/05/2010 in Case T-243/08: Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Educa Borras S.A. (Case C-370/10 P) Language of the case: English Parties Appellant: Ravensburger AG (represented by: H. Harte-Bavendamm, M. Goldmann, Rechtsanwälte) Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Educa Borras S.A. Form of order sought The appellant claims that the Court should: Allow the Appeal against the Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 (Case T-243/08); Set aside the judgment of the General Court; Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 8 April 2008 (Case R/597/2007-2; As appropriate remit the case to the OHIM for fresh consideration; Order the Intervener and the OHIM to pay the Appellant's costs of this Appeal. Pleas in law and main arguments The General Court erred in law in finding that it need not take into account the reputation of the earlier trade marks in finding that the conditions for the applicability of Article 8 (1)(b) and 8(5) Community Trade Mark Regulation1 were not met. The General Court violated the system of Article 8 Community Trade Mark Regulation I carrying out a single factual assessment of similarity with implications both under Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) Community Trade Mark Regulation, even though both provisions have entirely distinct sets of tests. The General Court erred in law and violated Article 76 Community Trade Mark Regulation in leaving the Second Board of Appeal's conclusion unobjected that the market circumstances as regards the use of house marks on the one hand and trademarks for specific products on the other hand were irrelevant. The General Court violated Article 77 Community Trade Mark Regulation by leaving the Board of Appeal's manifestly wrongful use of its discretion to hold an oral hearing unobjected. ____________ 1 - Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1