Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 December 2016 —  
Market Watch Franchise & Consulting v EUIPO

(Case C‑401/16 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the word mark MITOCHRON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b))

| 1. | EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Permission to lodge a reply—Discretion of the Court  (Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 135(2))  (see paras 5, 6) |

| 2. | Appeal—Grounds—Procedural irregularity—Need for the interests of the appellant to be adversely affected—Burden of proof  (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)  (see paras 5, 6) |

| 3. | Appeal—Grounds—Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court—Error of law relied on not identified—Manifest inadmissibility  (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2))  (see paras 5, 6) |

| 4. | Appeal—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) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)  (see paras 5, 6) |

| 5. | EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Earlier mark consisting in an EU trade mark—Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 5, 6) |

| 6. | EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Objective marketing considerations to be taken into account  (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))  (see paras 5, 6) |

Operative part

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |

| 2. | Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. shall bear its own costs. |

[Top](#document1)