Case C‑609/11 P

Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH

v

centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG

‛Appeal — Regulations (EC) Nos 207/2009 and 2868/95 — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark CENTROTHERM — Genuine use — Concept — Evidence — Sworn statement — Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — General Court’s powers of review — Scope of pleas in law and forms of order sought by an intervener’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 26 September 2013

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Actions before the Courts of the European Union — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 134(1), (2) and (3); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(1) and (3))

It is apparent from Article 65(1) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark that actions may be brought against decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) before the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has jurisdiction to annul or to alter such decisions.

Moreover, Article 134(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court provides that the parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal other than the applicant may participate, as interveners, in the proceedings before the General Court and may, in that capacity, apply for a form of order and put forward pleas in law independently of those applied for and put forward by the main parties. Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure adds, in that regard, that such an intervener may, in his response, seek an order annulling or altering the decision of the Board of Appeal on a point not raised in the application and put forward pleas in law not raised in the application.

However, the General Court’s power to alter decisions does not have the effect of conferring on that court the power to carry out an assessment on which the Board of Appeal has not yet adopted a position. Exercise of the power to alter decisions must therefore, in principle, be limited to situations in which the General Court, after reviewing the assessment made by the Board of Appeal, is in a position to determine, on the basis of the matters of fact and of law as established, what decision the Board of Appeal was required to take. The General Court cannot, therefore, examine, for the purpose of possibly altering the contested decision, the probative value of evidence which was not examined by the Board of Appeal in that decision.

(see paras 37, 38, 48, 50)

Case C‑609/11 P

Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH

v

centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG

‛Appeal — Regulations (EC) Nos 207/2009 and 2868/95 — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark CENTROTHERM — Genuine use — Concept — Evidence — Sworn statement — Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — General Court’s powers of review — Scope of pleas in law and forms of order sought by an intervener’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 26 September 2013

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Actions before the Courts of the European Union — Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 134(1), (2) and (3); Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(1) and (3))

It is apparent from Article 65(1) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark that actions may be brought against decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) before the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has jurisdiction to annul or to alter such decisions.

Moreover, Article 134(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court provides that the parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal other than the applicant may participate, as interveners, in the proceedings before the General Court and may, in that capacity, apply for a form of order and put forward pleas in law independently of those applied for and put forward by the main parties. Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure adds, in that regard, that such an intervener may, in his response, seek an order annulling or altering the decision of the Board of Appeal on a point not raised in the application and put forward pleas in law not raised in the application.

However, the General Court’s power to alter decisions does not have the effect of conferring on that court the power to carry out an assessment on which the Board of Appeal has not yet adopted a position. Exercise of the power to alter decisions must therefore, in principle, be limited to situations in which the General Court, after reviewing the assessment made by the Board of Appeal, is in a position to determine, on the basis of the matters of fact and of law as established, what decision the Board of Appeal was required to take. The General Court cannot, therefore, examine, for the purpose of possibly altering the contested decision, the probative value of evidence which was not examined by the Board of Appeal in that decision.

(see paras 37, 38, 48, 50)