CELEX: 62011CN0076
Language: en
Date: 2011-02-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-76/11 P: Appeal brought on 21 February 2011 by Tresplain Investments Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2010 in Case T-303/08: Tresplain Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd

16.4.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 120/6
            
         Appeal brought on 21 February 2011 by Tresplain Investments Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2010 in Case T-303/08: Tresplain Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd
   (Case C-76/11 P)
   2011/C 120/11
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Tresplain Investments Ltd (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister, J. Stobbs, Attorney)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the contested judgment of the General Court and the contested decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the appellant's costs incurred before the General Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant submits that the General Court's Decision erred in law in its interpretation and application of Article 8(4) CTMR (1) in the following ways:
   
               1.
            
            
               The General Court and Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the existence of goodwill created a right of more than mere local significance. It does not do so unless the goodwill is of more than mere local significance;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The General Court and Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the evidence of concurrent trading was evidence relevant only to the likelihood of a misrepresentation. Consideration should also have been given to the argument that the existence of concurrent goodwill would have rendered misrepresentation impossible.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The General Court and Board of Appeal erred in treating the evidence of use as indicating that the goodwill was associated with the earlier sign relied upon.
            
         
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark
   
      OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1