Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 30.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/13 |

---

Appeal brought on 28 February 2011 by Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-513/09 José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel

(Case C-101/11 P)

2011/C 130/24

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel (represented by: S. Míguez Pereira, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-513/09; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | declare Community design No 000 426 895-0002 invalid; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | in the alternative, refer the matter back to the General Court for a fresh ruling on the merits; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. to pay the costs incurred at first instance and, should it be granted leave to intervene in the appeal in its capacity as proprietor of the industrial design in respect of which invalidity proceedings have been brought, the costs of the present appeal proceedings as well. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| (a) | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 6/2002[(1)](#ntr1-C_2011130EN.01001302-E0001) and related provisions.  Error by the General Court in declaring that the overall impression made by the disputed design on informed users is different from that made by the earlier design relied on in support of the application for invalidity. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| (b) | Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 and related provisions.  Omission and error on the part of the General Court in the assessment and application of Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| (c) | Error on the part of the General Court in failing to state adequate reasons in the judgment under appeal.  Failure by the General Court, in delivering the judgment under appeal, to state reasons and to provide justification; and exceeding of its jurisdiction. |

---

[Top](#document1)