Corte di giustizia UE/2018

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 13 December 2018 ( * ) (Rectification order) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑118/18 P-REC, APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 12 February 2018, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] GmbH, formerly [OSCURATO:PERSONA] GmbH, established in Neu-Isenburg (Germany), represented by C. Hoppe, Rechtsanwalt, appellant, the other parties to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EUIPO), defendant at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] Inc., established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), intervener at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of C. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], acting as [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], E. Juhász and C. Vajda (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: J. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 On 28 June 2018, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) made the order in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EUIPO (C‑118/18 P, not published, EU:C:2018:522). 2 That order contains an obvious slip and a clerical error which it is appropriate for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to rectify of its own motion, in accordance with Article 154(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which applies to the procedure on appeal under Article 190(1) of those rules. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. The heading preceding paragraph 20 of the order of 28 June 2018, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EUIPO (C ‑ 118/18 P, EU:C:2018:522), shall be rectified as follows: ‘Third ground of appeal, concerning the failure to take into account a judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], Germany)’. 2. Paragraph 22 of that order shall be rectified as follows: ‘In the assessment of the genuine use of an EU trade mark, the decision of a national court concerning the genuine use of a national trade mark can neither bind EUIPO nor replace EUIPO’s assessment of the evidence, and that is the case even if that national trade mark is identical to the EU trade mark. The judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]) does not therefore constitute a new item of evidence of genuine use of the EU trade mark that EUIPO was obliged to take into account.’ 3. Paragraph 25 of the order, in the version in the language of the case, shall be rectified as follows: ‘However, the appellant does not explain to what extent the findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are vitiated by an error of law but, as in its action before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the appellant challenges only the Board of Appeal’s assessment of the evidence. Given that, in an appeal, the jurisdiction of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice is confined to a review of the findings of law on the pleas argued at first instance, this ground of appeal is manifestly inadmissible.’ 4. The original of this order shall be annexed to the original of the rectified order. A note of this order shall be made in the margin of the original of the rectified order. Luxembourg, 13 December 2018. A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.