do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-369/10 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2010 by Ravensburger AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-108/09: Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Educa Borras, S.A.
Date: 2010-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), competition law, consumer protection, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2010260EN.01001001.xml










25.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/10





Appeal brought on 22 July 2010 by Ravensburger AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-108/09: Ravensburger AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Educa Borras, S.A.
(Case C-369/10 P)
()
2010/C 260/13
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-108/09);










—


set aside the judgment of the General Court;










—


annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 8 January 2009 (Case R 305/2008-2) and, as appropriate, the decision of the Cancellation Division of 3 September 2006 (Case 1107C);










—


(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 appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:






1.


Distortion of evidence by misrepresenting the Appellant's factual statements regarding the list of goods of the Community trade mark in question by asserting that it was ‘not disputed in the present case that the goods for which the mark at issue was registered include, in particular, memory games’.










2.


Distortion of evidence by applying Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) and application of a flawed and overly restrictive test in assessing the descriptive character of a word mark, namely Community trade mark registration No 1 203 629‘MEMORY’.










3.


Distortion of evidence by applying Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation and application of a flawed and overly restrictive test in assessing the lack of distinctiveness of a word mark, namely Community Trade Mark registration No 1 203 629‘MEMORY’.










4.


Distortion of evidence by almost exclusively relying on assumed linguistic usage in distant non-European countries.






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