CELEX: 62013CN0670
Language: en
Date: 2013-12-13 00:00:00
Title: Case C-670/13 P: Appeal brought on 13 December 2013 by The Cartoon Network, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 October 2013 in Case T-285/12: The Cartoon Network, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

22.2.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 52/29
            
         Appeal brought on 13 December 2013 by The Cartoon Network, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 October 2013 in Case T-285/12: The Cartoon Network, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-670/13 P)
   2014/C 52/54
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: The Cartoon Network, Inc. (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Boomerang TV, SA
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant seeks an order that:
   
               —
            
            
               The judgment under appeal be set aside by the Court of Justice and that the contested decision be annulled; or in the alternative,
            
         
               —
            
            
               That the judgment under appeal be set aside by the Court of Justice and referred back to the General Court; and that
            
         
               —
            
            
               The defendant pays to the applicant, the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
               1.
            
            
               
                  Infringement of Article 36 and 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘Statute’)
               
               Articles 36 and 53 of the Statute state that the General Court has a duty to set out the reasons on which its judgments are based. In the Judgment under Appeal the General Court erred in law by failing to provide reasons for its conclusion that the relevant public consisted solely of professionals.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               
                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009/EC
                   (1): Distortion of the Facts: Relevant Public
               
               
                           2.1.
                        
                        
                           The General Court erred in law in concluding that the relevant public consisted solely of professionals and was the same relevant public for the relevant services of the Intervener's CTM and the CTM Application, as this conclusion is based on a distortion of the facts before the General Court. The General Court and the Board should have limited their analysis to the specification of the CTM Application; or in the alternative
                        
                     
                           2.2.
                        
                        
                           If the General Court was correct to conclude that the relevant public for both the CTM Application and the Intervener's CTM was composed solely of professionals, the General Court ought to have considered that there was no likelihood of confusion between the CTM Application and Intervener's CTM, as a result of the higher degree of attention paid by the relevant professionals.
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               
                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009/EC: Distortion of the Facts: Similarity of Services and Infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation 207/2009/EC
               
               The General Court erred in law in concluding that the services covered by the CTM Application are similar to the services protected by the Intervener's CTM, bearing in mind inter alia their respective nature, intended purpose, end users and relevant public. Furthermore, the General Court and the Board erred in law in relying on facts on their own initiative.
            
         
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
   
      OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1