CELEX: 62014CN0400
Language: en
Date: 2014-08-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-400/14 P: Appeal brought on 20 August 2014 by Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2014 in Case T-372/11: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

1.12.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 431/9
            
         Appeal brought on 20 August 2014 by Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2014 in Case T-372/11: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-400/14 P)
   (2014/C 431/15)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (represented by: D. Altenburg, T. Haug, Rechtsanwälte)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Repsol YPF, SA
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant requests that:
   
               —
            
            
               The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (General Court) of June 26, 2014 (Case T-372/11) shall be annulled and the case shall be referred to the General Court for reapplication;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The defendant shall bear all costs of this proceeding.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The applicant contests the General Court's interpretation of the definition of ‘distribution services’ which is — as a matter of law — a preliminary issue in the assessment of similarity of services. The applicant consequently claims that the General Court has taken an incorrect perception as the legal basis for its subsequent assessment concerning the likelihood of confusion between the trademarks at issue.
   The applicant would point out that the ECJ's main function is to supply a uniform interpretation of the concept and scope of the respective services (C-418/02, paragraph 33 — Praktiker; joined cases C-414/99 to C-416/99 Zino Davidoff and Levi Strauss, paragraphs 42 and 43) and of the judgment ‘IP-Translator’ (C-307/10, June 19, 2012) whereby ‘goods and services have to
      be definable in an objective manner in order to fulfil the trademark's function as an indication of
      origin’ and asks the ECJ for a ‘sufficient precise and clear’ definition of ‘distribution services’.
   In the opinion of the applicant, the service ‘distribution’ has a very narrow scope and comprises only the activities ‘transport; packaging and storage of goods’ but not ‘retail and wholesale’ services. The applicant further points out that the Court of Justice clarified in the ‘Praktiker’ judgment that the objective of ‘retail’ (class 35) is — in contrast to the services in class 39 — the sale of goods to consumers, whereas these activities consist, ‘inter alia, in selecting an
      assortment of goods offered for sale and in offering a variety of services aimed at inducing the
      consumer to conclude the transaction with the trader in question rather than with a competitor’.
   The general classification of ‘distribution’ in Nice Class 39 cannot be ignored in the view of the applicant since the ECJ expressly underlined its argumentation in its Praktiker decision in consideration of the Explanatory Note of Nice Class 35 (C-418/02, paragraph 36).
   Therefore the decision of the General Court must be annulled and referred back for reapplication.