CELEX: 62016CN0678
Language: en
Date: 2016-12-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-678/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Monster Energy Company against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15: Monster Energy Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office

8.5.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 144/17
            
         Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Monster Energy Company against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15: Monster Energy Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-678/16 P)
   (2017/C 144/22)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Monster Energy Company (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the General Court of 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 4 May 2015 in Case R1028/2014-5
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 February 2014 in Opposition 2 178567
            
         
               —
            
            
               Reject the opposed Mark for all goods in classes 29, 30 and 33
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear its own costs and pay those of the appellant
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The General Court incorrectly applied Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR (1) in its approach to the assessment of, and weight to be attached to, the dominant and/or distinctive elements of a composite mark. If the correct approach had been taken by the General Court it would have led to a finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the opposed mark and the earlier mark.
   The General Court incorrectly applied Article 8(5) EUTMR in its approach to the assessment of, and weight to be attached to, the dominant and/or distinctive elements of a composite mark.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
   
      OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1