Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/11 |

---

Appeal brought on 8 August 2005 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A. against the judgment delivered on 11 May 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-160/02 to T-162/02 between Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A. and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (intervener: France Cartes SAS)

(Case C-311/05 P)

(2005/C 243/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 May 2005 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-160/02 to T-162/02 between Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A. and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (intervener: France Cartes SAS), was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 August 2005 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A., represented by E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers.

The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal and uphold its claims.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal is founded on three grounds of appeal:

The first ground of appeal alleges infringement by the Second Board of Appeal of the principle of legality and of the rights of defence of Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A.. The Court of First Instance should not have confined itself to consideration of the legality of the contested decision but should have carried out a new and thorough examination of the case in the light of the wording of the contested decisions and the specific claims of the applicant and the intervener.

The second ground of appeal alleges that the Second Board of Appeal infringed the principle of legality and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94.[(1)](#ntr1-C_2005243EN.01001103-E0001) The Court of First Instance exceeded its jurisdiction in that it rectified and corrected with its own arguments the substantive errors made by the Second Board of Appeal in connection with the application of the grounds of refusal in Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 to the appellant's figurative marks.

The third ground of appeal alleges that the judgment under appeal fails to state grounds for the purposes of Article 253 EC. The judgment under appeal does not show clearly and unequivocally the reasons which led the Court to hold that the absolute ground for refusal in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 applied to the applicant's figurative marks.

---

[Top](#document1)