Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 23.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/2 |

---

Appeal brought on 20 March 2017 by QuaMa Quality Management GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2017 in Case T-225/15, QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-139/17 P)

(2017/C 357/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (represented by: C. Russ, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Microchip Technology, Inc.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2015 (Joined Cases R 1809/2014-4 and R 1680/2014-4). |

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant bases its appeal, lodged against the judgment of the General Court, on the following considerations:

The appeal alleges an infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.[(1)](#ntr1-C_2017357EN.01000201-E0001) The General Court, it is submitted, erred in proceeding on the basis of the premiss that the intervener had, on 9 April 2013, submitted the correct application for registration of the change of ownership and had merely used an incorrect form for that purpose. In fact, the application for a ‘change of name or address of a proprietor’ related to all of SMSC Europe GmbH’s trade marks (14) and was also interpreted by EUIPO in that manner, as the letter of 14 April 2013 makes clear. It is therefore not in dispute that EUIPO dismissed the application of 9 April 2013 in its entirety and upheld only the application lodged on 14 June 2013, after the period for submitting a statement of opposition had expired.

The appeal further alleges infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. Neither the Opposition Division nor the Board of Appeal, it is submitted, addressed the determination of the relevant public in anything approaching a sufficiently satisfactory manner. The assessment of the likelihood of confusion cannot take place without determination of the relevant public and the distinctiveness in relation to each of the individual goods and services. This is even more so the case as regards the General Court’s finding that the similarity of the signs in question for a specialist public — to which the General Court does not belong — is ‘low’.

---

[Top](#document1)