Case C-84/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2015 in Case T-525/14: Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2016-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, pneumatic tyre, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016211EN.01002201.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/22






Appeal brought on 12 February 2016 by Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 December 2015 in Case T-525/14: Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-84/16 P)
(2016/C 211/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH (represented by: S. O. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes, J. Schumacher, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgement of the General Court of 8. December, 2015, in Case T-525/14 in its entirety;










—


remit the case back to the General Court in order to re-examine the inherent degree of distinctiveness of the signs in dispute, including of the elements of which these signs are composed of, as well as the degree of similarity between these signs, and to,










—


order the defendant to bear the costs including the costs incurred by the Appellant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on an infringement of Union law by the General Court in so far as the General Court in its judgment of 8. December 2015 infringed Article 8 (1) (b) of Council Regulation No. 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark.
In summary, the General Court erred in its assessment of the distinctiveness of the contested CTM application ‘’, including of the elements ‘’ and ‘’ of which this sign is composed, and of the earlier trade mark ‘’. In addition, this incorrect assessment of the General Court was also based on a distortion of the facts regarding the language knowledge of the relevant public and their understanding of the meaning of the elements of the signs in dispute as well as of the evidence submitted by the defendant as Annex C.1 and Annex C.4, currently submitted as Annex 6.
Furthermore, the General Court failed to provide reasons as to why certain aspects of the signs in dispute, e.g. their figurative elements, were not considered in in the assessment of the similarity of signs.
On the basis of these incorrect assessments, the General Court erroneously held that in view of the strong similarity or identity of the goods covered, the average degree of similarity between the mark applied for and the earlier French trade mark and the normal inherent distinctiveness of that earlier trade mark there is a likelihood of confusion pursuant to Article 8 (1) (b) CTMR.


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