CELEX: 62018CN0825
Language: en
Date: 2018-12-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-825/18 P: Appeal brought on 28 December 2018 by Mamas and Papas Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2018 in Case T-672/17: Mamas and Papas v EUIPO

29.4.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 148/11
            
         
      Appeal brought on 28 December 2018 by Mamas and Papas Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2018 in Case T-672/17: Mamas and Papas v EUIPO
      (Case C-825/18 P)
      (2019/C 148/11)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: Mamas and Papas Ltd (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, B. Whitehead, J. Dainty, Solicitors)
      
         Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-672/17, Mamas and Papas Ltd v EUIPO;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  give judgment on the issue of prior disclosure;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union on the remaining pleas in law that were brought before the General Court but not resolved by that Court;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Office and intervener to bear their own costs and pay those of the appellant.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      First the General Court erred in law regarding the powers of the EUIPO to examine the facts under Article 63(1) CDR (1) in relation to disclosure of the prior design. Where prior disclosure is positively averred by the design holder, it is not open to the EUIPO to come to a different conclusion on that issue.
      Secondly, in any event, as regards its assessment of the evidence of prior disclosure the General Court distorted the evidence and incorrectly assessed the facts, and its decision contains a substantive inaccuracy in the findings attributable to the documents submitted to it which is clear from the case file.
      
         (1)  11 Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Designs (OJ 2002, L 3, p. 1).