CELEX: 62011CN0402
Language: en
Date: 2011-07-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-402/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 2011 by Jager & Polacek GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09 Jager & Polacek GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

7.1.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 6/2
            
         Appeal brought on 28 July 2011 by Jager & Polacek GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09 Jager & Polacek GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
   (Case C-402/11 P)
   2012/C 6/02
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Jager & Polacek GmbH (represented by: A. Renck, 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 (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case T-488/09;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The requirement for effective legal protection demands that the disputed communication of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, by which the appellant’s opposition was declared admissible, be regarded as a decision and that the opposition proceedings be continued. The contrary view of the General Court is legally incorrect and based on judgments of the Court of Justice which do not apply to the present case.
   Furthermore, the General Court erred in stating that a communication cannot be a decision. What is correct is, rather, that a decision may also be contained in a communication.
   Lastly, the General Court provided insufficient grounds as to why the international registration of the disputed mark is irrelevant as regards the present case.