Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 – Greinwald v Wessang

(Case C‑608/12 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 169(2) of those rules — Content required in the application initiating an appeal’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Lack of specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning — Failure to indicate the paragraphs of the judgment under appeal that are contested — Inadmissible (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see paras 26, 28, 29, 31, 32)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 36)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 in Case T‑333/11 Wessang v OHIM — Greinwald by which the General Court annulled in part the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1837/2010-4) in relation to opposition proceedings between Mr Nicolas Wessang and Greinwald GmbH — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Likelihood of confusion between a figurative sign containing the word element ‘star foods’ and a figurative Community trade mark containing the word element ‘star snacks’.

Operative part:

1. The main appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed.

2. Greinwald GmbH is ordered to pay the costs of the main appeal.

3. Nicolas Wessang is ordered to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 – Greinwald v Wessang

(Case C‑608/12 P)

‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 169(2) of those rules — Content required in the application initiating an appeal’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Lack of specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning — Failure to indicate the paragraphs of the judgment under appeal that are contested — Inadmissible (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see paras 26, 28, 29, 31, 32)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 36)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 in Case T‑333/11 Wessang v OHIM — Greinwald by which the General Court annulled in part the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1837/2010-4) in relation to opposition proceedings between Mr Nicolas Wessang and Greinwald GmbH — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Likelihood of confusion between a figurative sign containing the word element ‘star foods’ and a figurative Community trade mark containing the word element ‘star snacks’.

Operative part:

1. The main appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed.

2. Greinwald GmbH is ordered to pay the costs of the main appeal.