CELEX: 62013CN0669
Language: en
Date: 2013-12-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-669/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2013 by Mundipharma GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2013 in Case T-328/12 Mundipharma GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

22.3.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 85/13
            
         Appeal brought on 16 December 2013 by Mundipharma GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2013 in Case T-328/12 Mundipharma GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-669/13 P)
   2014/C 85/24
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Mundipharma GmbH (represented by: F. Nielsen, Rechtsanwalt)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2013 (Case T-328/12);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant and respondent to pay the costs.
            
         
      Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   
   In the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue OXYGESIC and Maxigesic and thus that the requirements of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) had not been satisfied. The judgment under appeal is based on a distortion of the facts and contains contradictions which infringe the general rules of logic. It constitutes an infringement of Community law, namely of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. If the General Court had carried out a correct and non-contradictory assessment of the facts of the case, it would have reached the conclusion that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue and would therefore have upheld the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 23 May 2012.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).