CELEX: 62014CN0035
Language: en
Date: 2014-01-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-35/14 P: Appeal brought on 23 January 2014 by Enercon GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2013 in Case T-245/12: Gamesa Eólica, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)

7.4.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 102/18
            
         Appeal brought on 23 January 2014 by Enercon GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2013 in Case T-245/12: Gamesa Eólica, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)
   (Case C-35/14 P)
   2014/C 102/24
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Enercon GmbH (represented by: J. Eberhardt, Rechtsanwalt, R. Böhm, Rechtsanwalt)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gamesa Eólica, SL
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the judgment in case T-245/12 handed down by the General Court on 12 November 2013;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the following grounds:
   
               1.
            
            
               As a consequence of the fact that the appellant did not lodge a reply in the proceedings before the General Court, that Court did not involve the appellant in the proceedings and did not serve a copy of the judgment on the appellant. It is submitted that the General Court therefore acted in breach of its Rules of Procedure and violated the appellant’s property rights by denial of due legal process.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The General Court erred in assuming that the contested mark is a ‘colour mark per se’, and should not have used this categorisation as the sole basis for assessing the distinctiveness of the mark.