Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 254/7 |

---

Appeal brought on 18 May 2015 by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-378/13, APAL and Star Fruit v OHIM

(Case C-226/15 P)

(2015/C 254/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 March 2015 in Case T-378/13, EU:T:2015:186, insofar as it dismisses the action brought by the appellants seeking, principally, alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2013 in Case R 1215/2011-4; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2013 in Case R 1215/2011-4, so that the appeal brought by the appellants before that Board of Appeal is held to be well founded, with the consequence that their opposition to the registration of the Community trade mark application ENGLISH PINK No 8610768 must be upheld; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order OHIM to pay all the costs of the appellants in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on the following grounds.

First, the appellants submit that both the General Court and the Board of Appeal breached the general principle of res judicata concerning a decision on a matter between the same parties by a Community trade mark court applying Regulation (EC) 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark (CTMR)[(1)](#ntr1-C_2015254EN.01000702-E0001), as well as the general principles of legal certainty, sound administration and the protection of legitimate expectations.

Second, the appellants complain that the General Court infringed Article 65(3) of that Regulation in not altering the decision of OHIM.

Last, since, in the appellants’ view, the state of the proceedings permits the Court of Justice to give final judgment in the matter, they request that it apply the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

---

[Top](#document1)