CELEX: 62012CN0379
Language: en
Date: 2012-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-379/12 P: Appeal brought on 7 August 2012 by Arav Holding Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2012 in Case T-557/10 H.Eich v OHIM — Arav (H.EICH)

6.10.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 303/19
            
         Appeal brought on 7 August 2012 by Arav Holding Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2012 in Case T-557/10 H.Eich v OHIM — Arav (H.EICH)
   (Case C-379/12 P)
   2012/C 303/33
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Arav Holding Srl (represented by: R. Bocchini, avvocato)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: H.Eich Srl, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   Set aside in full the judgment of 19 June 2012 of the General Court of the European Union and, accordingly, uphold the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM delivered on 9 September 2010, on the ground that the latter fully complied with and applied the rules laid down in the Community trade mark regulation (‘CTMR’), (1) in particular Article 8(1)(b) thereof.
   
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   By its appeal, Arav Holding Srl challenges the judgment of the General Court in question in two respects.
   First, it complains that the General Court failed to recognise the graphic, phonetic and conceptual similarity between, on the one hand, the Italian national figurative mark ‘H SILVIAN HEACH’ and the international figurative mark ‘H SILVIAN HEACH’ and, on the other, the mark ‘H.EICH’. The General Court failed to identify correctly the essential core of the mark, namely the surname and not the first name. In addition, the General Court failed to take into account the limited significance of the use of a point, which is extremely small in relation to the letters, and failed to take into consideration that the earlier trade mark is a ‘strong’ mark.
   Second, Arav Holding Srl submits that the General Court erred in finding that there was no overall likelihood of confusion between the marks resulting from their similarity and the similar uses made of them.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).