Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/2 |

---

Appeal brought on 5 June 2013 by Società Italiana Calzature SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2013 in Case T-336/11 Società Italiana Calzature SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-308/13 P)

2013/C 233/03

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Società Italiana Calzature SpA (represented by: A. Rapisardi and C. Ginevra, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), VICINI SpA

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Set aside judgment No 564397 delivered by the General Court of the European Union in Cases T-336/11 on 9 April 2013 and notified on that date and grant the claims made by Società Italiana Calzature SpA (‘SIC’) in the proceedings at first instance by annulling the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 in Case R 0634/20 10-2 and, in accordance with the decision of the Opposition Division of 5 March 2010 on opposition No B 1 350 711, declare that Community trade mark VICINI No 6513386 is to be refused registration on the ground of lack of novelty, as it is similar to such a degree that it may be confused with the earlier word sign ‘ZANOTTI’, which is registered in the European Union under No 244 277 and in Italy under No 452 869, SIC being the proprietor of both registrations; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order OHIM to pay all the costs of both sets of proceedings; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order VICINI SpA to reimburse SIC in respect of all the costs relating to the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision of the General Court is vitiated by inadequate and contradictory reasoning. The fact that the graphic element is visually dominant when compared with the word element of the mark applied for and that the words ‘Giuseppe’ and ‘Design’ have been added to the term ‘ZANOTTI’ are not sufficient to rule out the possibility of a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, in view of the intrinsic qualities of the elements in question, in particular their lack of distinctive character.

The General Court erred in finding that the word ‘ZANOTTI’, which is the word element of the mark applied for, does not have an independent distinctive role, thus also ruling out in this respect a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

---

[Top](#document1)