Novomatic v EUIPO (Order) [2016] EUECJ C-342/16_CO (06 December 2016)

Novomatic v EUIPO (Order) [2016] EUECJ C-342/16_CO (06 December 2016)

The appeal was dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded because it sought a re-examination of factual assessments made by the General Court, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice on appeal, and failed to demonstrate any distortion of facts or legal error.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EUECJ C-342/16_CO
Parties
Appellant: Novomatic AG; Defendant at First Instance: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); Intervener at First Instance: Granini France
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
06 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Order on Appeal Under Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
EU Trade Mark, Opposition Proceedings, Appeal Procedure, Similarity of Goods and Signs
Intellectual Property European Union Law EU Trade Mark Opposition Proceedings Appeal Procedure Similarity of Goods and Signs

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Novomatic AG

Appellant

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant at First Instance

Granini France

Intervener at First Instance

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Order on Appeal Under Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Court erred in its assessment of the similarity of goods and signs under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
  2. 2 Whether the General Court failed to state reasons as required by Article 296 TFEU and Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded because it sought a re-examination of factual assessments made by the General Court, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice on appeal, and failed to demonstrate any distortion of facts or legal error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Novomatic AG shall bear its own costs.