Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

**Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2010 – Royal Appliance International v OHIM**

**(Case C‑448/09 P)**

Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Earlier mark ‘sensixx’ – Word mark ‘Centrixx’ – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Application for revocation of an earlier mark – Proceedings pending before the national courts – Request for a stay of the proceedings before the General Court

1.                     *Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance
– Review of the legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Annulment or alteration for reasons appearing after the judgment
was delivered – Excluded (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 43-44)*

2.                     *Appeals – 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) second para.,
TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 77)*

**Re:**

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 15 September 2009 in Case T-446/09 | Royal Appliance International | v | OHIM | – | BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte | , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007, rejecting the registration of the word mark ‘Centrixx’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Class 7, by granting the opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘sensixx’ – Failure to stay the proceedings while awaiting the resolution of the dispute pending before the national courts concerning the application for revocation of the earlier mark – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion between two marks. |

**Operative part:**

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. |  | The appeal is dismissed. |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. |  | Royal Appliance International GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)