CELEX: 62012CN0383
Language: en
Date: 2012-08-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-383/12 P: Appeal brought on 8 August 2012 by Environmental Manufacturing LLP against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2012 in Case T-570/10: Environmental Manufacturing LLP v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

27.10.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 331/13
            
         
      Appeal brought on 8 August 2012 by Environmental Manufacturing LLP against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2012 in Case T-570/10: Environmental Manufacturing LLP v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
      (Case C-383/12 P)
      (2012/C 331/21)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Appellant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, M. Atkins, Solicitor, K. Shadbolt, Trade Mark Attorney)
      
         Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Société Elmar Wolf
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The appellant seeks the following order:
      
                  1.
               
               
                  The judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-570/10 dated 22 May 2012 shall be set aside and the Court shall give final judgment in the matter.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  The Office and intervener shall bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      Following the Court of Justice's judgment in Case C-252/07 Intel Corporation (2008) ECR I-8823, proof that the use of the later mark is or would be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark requires evidence of a change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer of the goods or services for which the earlier mark was registered consequent on the use of the later mark, or a serious likelihood that such a change will occur in the future. The General Court erroneously did not require such proof, instead concluding that it is sufficient merely if the earlier mark's ability to identify the goods or services for which it is registered and used as coming from the proprietor of that mark is weakened because use of the later mark leads to dispersion of the identity and hold upon the public mind of the earlier mark.