Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 2011 – Herhof v OHIM
(Case C-418/10 P)
Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Opposition proceedings – Earlier mark STABILAT – Figurative sign ‘stabilator’ – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Absence of similarity of the goods and services
1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the Union judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal – Review of the legal classificaiton made of the facts of the case – Included (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 47-48)
2. Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted – Plea alleging such distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(1)(c)) (see paras 66-67)
Re:
Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2010 in Case T-60/09 Herhof v OHIM – Stabilator , by which that court dismissed the action brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark STABILAT in respect of goods and services in Classes 1, 7, 11, 20, 37, 40 and 42, against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2008, rejecting its opposition against registration of the figurative Community trade mark stabilator in respect of goods and services in Classes 19, 37 and 42 – Incorrect assessment of the similarity between the services covered by the marks at issue – Infringement of the right to be heard before a court.
Operative part
1.
The appeal is dismissed.
2.
Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH is ordered to pay the costs.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy