IPPT20110705, CJEU, Edwin v OHIM

15-07-2011 Print this page



Invalid trade mark Elio Fiorucci because of an earlier “right to a name”, broad interpretation:

• As regards the wording of that provision, it should be noted that the words ‘right to a name’ do not provide any support for the restrictive interpre-tation proposed by the appellant, to the effect that the provision concerns only that right as an attrib-ute of personality and does not cover commercial exploitation of a name.


Examination of national law by Court of Justice
• As regards the examination, in the context of an appeal, of the findings made by the General Court with regard to that national law, the Court of Jus-tice has jurisdiction to determine, first of all, whether the General Court, on the basis of the documents and other evidence submitted to it, dis-torted the wording of the national provisions at is-sue or of the national case-law relating to them, or of the academic writings concerning them; second, whether the General Court, as regards those par-ticulars, made findings that were manifestly incon-sistent with their content; and, lastly, whether the General Court, in examining all the particulars, at-tributed to one of them, for the purpose of establish-ing the content of the national law at issue, a signifi-cance which is not appropriate in the light of the other particulars, where that is manifestly apparent from the documentation in the case‑file.


IPPT20110705, CJEU, Edwin v OHIM