CELEX: 62014CN0270
Language: en
Date: 2014-06-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-270/14 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2014 by Debonair Trading Internacional Ld a against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 3 April 2014 in Case T-356/12: Debonair Trading Internacional Ld a v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

8.9.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 303/14
            
         Appeal brought on 3 June 2014 by Debonair Trading Internacional Lda against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 3 April 2014 in Case T-356/12: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-270/14 P)
   2014/C 303/18
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               1)
            
            
               Set aside paragraph 2 of the Decision dismissing the action as to the remainder;
            
         
               2)
            
            
               Remit the case to the General Court for further consideration with direction as to the applicable law;
            
         
               3)
            
            
               Order the Respondent to pay the costs both of the proceedings before the General Court and those before the Court of Justice.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The Appellant relies on a single plea in law, namely infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR (1). In summary, it contends that the General Court erred by purporting to limit the conditions in which a likelihood of confusion may arise between a ‘family’ of trade marks and a later trade mark. Alternatively the Appellant contends that the General Court failed to carry out a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion taking into account all relevant factors.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark,
   
      OJ L 78, p. 1