CELEX: 62010CN0154
Language: en
Date: 2010-04-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-154/10 P: Appeal brought on 1 April 2010 by Nokia Oyj against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2010 in Case T-460/07 Nokia Oyj v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

3.7.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 179/15
            
         Appeal brought on 1 April 2010 by Nokia Oyj against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 20 January 2010 in Case T-460/07 Nokia Oyj v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-154/10 P)
   2010/C 179/25
   Language of the case: Finnish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Nokia Oyj (represented by C. Rehaag, asianajaja)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Medion AG
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment in Case T-460/07;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant claims that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-460/07 should be set aside on the ground that the General Court wrongly considered in that judgment that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks LIFE and LIFE BLOG and thus applied incorrectly Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. (1) The applicant submits that by so doing the judgment infringed European Union law.
   The General Court indeed found, as regards the similarity of the marks, that the subjects of comparison were the marks LIFE and LIFE BLOG, but then proceeded in a manner that clearly contradicted that finding, by assessing only the component LIFE of the composite mark LIFE BLOG in order to justify the conclusion that the marks were similar.
   In that connection the General Court incorrectly examined the questions of what kind of consumers belonged to the relevant group and how the consumers understood the mark, and thereby infringed the principles recognised in the case-law of the Court of Justice.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).