CELEX: 62019CN0125
Language: en
Date: 2019-02-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-125/19 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2019 by Vans, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 6 December 2018 in Case T-848/16, Deichmann SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office

1.7.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 220/17
            
         
      Appeal brought on 18 February 2019 by Vans, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 6 December 2018 in Case T-848/16, Deichmann SE v European Union Intellectual Property Office
      (Case C-125/19 P)
      (2019/C 220/22)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: Vans, Inc. (represented by: M. Hirsch and M. Metzner, Rechtsanwälte)
      
         Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Deichmann SE
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) of 6 December 2018 in Case T-848/16 and dismiss the action;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order Deichmann SE to pay the costs of the proceedings.
               
            
         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
      
      The General Court incorrectly proceeded on the basis that Deichmann had sufficiently substantiated the earlier marks; in particular, the General Court interpreted the concept of ‘equivalent document’ under Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 2868/95 (1) (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) (2) too broadly.
      Contrary to what the General Court found, an extract from the TMView database is not an ‘equivalent document’ within the meaning of Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 2868/95; this is apparent, first, from the clear wording of the provision, which refers, in respect of authorised equivalent documents, to the nature, not the origin, of the document, and, second, from the rationale behind the provision.
      Nor can an extract from TMView be established as substantiating evidence on the basis of the properties of the database.
      The opposition would therefore — as the Board of Appeal correctly established — have to be rejected simply because the earlier rights were not substantiated.
      
         (1)  Commission Regulation of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 303, 15.12.1995, p. 1).
      
         (2)  Commission Regulation of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430 (OJ L 104, 24.4.2018, p. 1).