European Case Law: Intellectual, industrial and commercial property- Trade marks

ORDER OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)

15 November 2016 (*)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Word mark AROMA – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

In Case C‑389/16 P

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 12 July 2016

BSH Hausgeräte v EUIPO

Order

By its appeal, BSH Hausgeräte GmbH seeks the setting aside of the judgment of 12 May 2016, Chung-Yuan Chang v EUIPO — BSH Hausgeräte (AROMA) (T‑749/14, not published, EU:T:2016:286) (‘the judgment under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed its action seeking annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 September 2014 (Case R 1887/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Peter Chung-Yuan Chang and BSH Hausgeräte concerning the word mark AROMA.

BSH Hausgeräte also claims that the Court should order EUIPO and Mr Chung-Yuan Chang to pay the costs.

In support of its appeal, BSH Hausgeräte puts forward two grounds of appeal. The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1). The second ground of appeal alleges infringement of Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Source: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=186022&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=622776