Tsujimoto v Kenzo (Order) [2016] EUECJ C-87/16_CO (21 July 2016)

Tsujimoto v Kenzo (Order) [2016] EUECJ C-87/16_CO (21 July 2016)

The single ground of appeal sought to challenge the General Court's factual findings and assessment of evidence, which is not permissible on appeal unless distortion is alleged or demonstrated. As no distortion was claimed, the appeal was manifestly inadmissible and dismissed under Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure.

Citation
[2016] EUECJ C-87/16_CO
Parties
Appellant: Kenzo Tsujimoto; Applicant at First Instance: Kenzo; Defendant at First Instance: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
21 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Order on Admissibility of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Legal Topics
Community Trade Mark, Relative Grounds for Refusal, Reputation of Mark, Article 8(5) Regulation (ec) No 207/2009, Appeal Admissibility
Intellectual Property European Union Law Community Trade Mark Relative Grounds for Refusal Reputation of Mark Article 8(5) Regulation (ec) No 207/2009 Appeal Admissibility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenzo Tsujimoto

Appellant

Kenzo

Applicant at First Instance

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant at First Instance

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Order on Admissibility of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Court erred in applying Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 regarding the risk of unfair advantage or detriment to the reputation of an earlier mark

Ratio Decidendi

The single ground of appeal sought to challenge the General Court's factual findings and assessment of evidence, which is not permissible on appeal unless distortion is alleged or demonstrated. As no distortion was claimed, the appeal was manifestly inadmissible and dismissed under Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto is ordered to bear his own costs.