Language of document :

Appeal brought on 6 August 2018 by the Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 in Case T-72/17, Gabriele Schmid v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-514/18 P)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (represented by: I. Hödl and S. Schoeller, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Gabriele Schmid, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

(a)    set aside the judgment under appeal delivered by the General Court (Ninth Chamber) on 7 June 2018 in Case T-72/17, in so far as the General Court upheld the action in respect of the principal plea in law and annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2016 (Case R 1768/2015-4), and itself give judgment in the matter; in the alternative

(b)    set aside the judgment under appeal delivered by the General Court (Ninth Chamber) on 7 June 2018 in Case T-72/17, in so far as the General Court upheld the action in respect of the principal plea in law and annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2016 (Case R 1768/2015-4), and refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision;

(c)    order the applicant at first instance, Ms Gabriele Schmid, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

This appeal is brought by the appellant against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 June 2018 in Case T-72/17, EU:T:2018:335, concerning an action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2016 (Case R 1768/2015-4), concerning revocation proceedings between Ms Schmid and the Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark, on the ground that that judgment infringes Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 1 (now Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001).

The appeal is based on two grounds: infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) and of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(2) of Regulation 2017/1001).

By its first ground of appeal, which is divided into four parts, the appellant claims specifically that the General Court erred in law in assessing the use of a protected geographical indication registered as an individual trade mark in accordance with its essential function, in requiring the trade mark to identify the producer and in omitting the case-law on the function of individual trade marks as indications of quality which contain a protected geographical indication and on the use of the trade mark by the members of the licensee.

By its second ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in applying Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 18(2) of Regulation 2017/1001), in particular in assessing the lawful use made of the EU trade mark by third parties, namely the association consisting of its members, and attributing that use to the proprietor of the mark.

____________

1     Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version), OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.