CELEX: 62014CN0512
Language: en
Date: 2014-11-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-512/14 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-686/13, Unibail v OHIM

27.4.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 138/24
            
         Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-686/13, Unibail v OHIM
   (Case C-512/14 P)
   (2015/C 138/34)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Unibail Management
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside the judgment under appeal,
            
         
               —
            
            
               Rule on the dispute pursuant to the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by OHIM.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant raises a single ground of appeal in support of its appeal. OHIM submits that the General Court infringed the first sentence of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of the same regulation. The General Court misconstrued not only the scope of the concept of general reasoning, but also its own case-law. Finally, the appellant criticises the General Court for having reversed the burden of proof.
   
      (1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.