Error in law has no impact on the operative part of the judgement under appeal

TRADE MARK LAW

Although the General Court has erred in law regarding the admissibility of arguments put forward by Pensa Pharma, this has no impact on the operative part of the judgment under appeal. Even if appropriate law was adopted, the arguments would have been rejected.

"It follows that the error of law found in paragraph 50 of the present judgment has no impact on the operative part of the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the third part of the first ground of appeal must be rejected."

Re-examination of factual assessment not possible.

"In the present case, by the fourth ground of appeal, Pensa Pharma is clearly attempting to obtain a re-examination by the Court of Justice of the factual assessment made by the General Court as regards the visual, phonetic and conceptual comparison of the signs at issue, without demonstrating or even alleging that the General Court distorted the evidence or the facts. Accordingly, Pensa Pharma cannot secure a re-examination by the Court of that assessment, with the result that the fourth ground of appeal must be rejected as inadmissible (see, to that effect, order of 15 July 2014, Zoo Sport v OHIM, C-675/13 P, not published, EU:C:2014:2079, paragraph 23)."

IPPT20160922, CJEU, Pensa Pharma v EUIPO

C-442/15 P - ECLI:EU:C:2016:720