4.11.03.00 - Общи положения
Общи положения
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber) 19. May 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark representing a bounding feline – Earlier international figurative marks representing a bounding feline – Relative ground for refusal – No injury to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) In Case T‑510/19, Puma SE, established in Herzogenaurach (Germany), represented by P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by D. Hanf and S. Hanne, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being Gemma Group Srl, established in Cerasolo Ausa (Italy), ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2019 (Case R 2057/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Puma and Gemma Group, THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Marcoulli, President, J. Schwarcz and C. Iliopoulos (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: J. Pichon, Administrator, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 17 July 2019, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 10 October 2019, having regard to the written question put by the Court to the parties and their answers to that question lodged at the Court Registry on 5 and 19 May 2020, further to the hearing on 18 September 2020, gives the following Judgment Background to the dispute 1. On 14 February 2013, Gemma ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber) 5. May 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark âme – Earlier international figurative mark AMEN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Counteraction of visual and phonetic similarities through conceptual differences – Conditions for counteraction) In Case T‑442/20, Isaline Grangé, residing in Edegem (Belgium), Alizée Van Strydonck, residing in Strombeek-Bever (Belgium), represented by M. De Vroey, lawyer, applicants, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by P. Villani and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being Nema Srl, established in San Lazzaro di Savena (Italy), ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2020 (Case R 2960/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Nema, on the one hand, and Ms Grangé and Ms Van Strydonck, on the other, THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber), composed of A.M. Collins, President, Z. Csehi (Rapporteur) and G. Steinfatt, Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 13 July 2020, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 25 November 2020, having regard to the fact that no request for a hearing was submitted by the parties within three weeks after service of notification of the close of the written part of the procedure, and having decided to rule ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber) 28. April 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark FLÜGEL – Earlier national word marks … VERLEIHT FLÜGEL and RED BULL VERLEIHT FLÜÜÜGEL – Relative grounds for refusal – Damage to reputation – Article 8(5) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Right to be heard – Article 70(2) and Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) In Case T‑509/19, Asolo LTD, established in Limassol (Cyprus), represented by W. Pors and N. Dorenbosch, lawyers, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by M. Capostagno and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being Red Bull GmbH, established in Fuschl am See (Austria), represented by A. Renck and S. Petivlasova, lawyers, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2019 (Case R 201/2019‑4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Red Bull and Asolo, THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber), composed of M.J. Costeira, President, D. Gratsias and T. Perišin (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: R. Ūkelytė, Administrator, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 16 July 2019, having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 17 October 2019, having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Court Registry on 31 October 2019, further to the ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber) 28. April 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark representing two extended wings around a triangle – Earlier EU figurative mark representing two extended wings around a rectangle – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Article 72(2) of Regulation 2017/1001) In Case T‑615/19, Point Tec Products Electronic GmbH, established in Ismaning (Germany), represented by D. Wiedemann, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by A. Lukošiūtė and S. Hanne, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon S.A., established in Saint-Imier (Switzerland), represented by P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2019 (Case R 2427/2018‑5), relating to opposition proceedings between Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon and Point Tec Products Electronic, THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Marcoulli, President, J. Schwarcz (Rapporteur) and R. Norkus, Judges, Registrar: R. Ūkelytė, Administrator having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 12 September 2019, having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 21 November 2019, having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Court Registry on 28 ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL ARRÊT DU TRIBUNAL (neuvième chambre) 28 avril 2021 (*) « Marque de l’Union européenne – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne verbale GEWÜRZSOMMELIER – Motif absolu de refus – Caractère descriptif –– Article 7, paragraphe 1, sous c), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001 – Néologisme » Dans l’affaire T‑348/20, Freistaat Bayern (Allemagne), représenté par Me V. Lehmann, avocat, partie requérante, contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), représenté par Mme D. Walicka, en qualité d’agent, partie défenderesse, ayant pour objet un recours formé contre la décision de la deuxième chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 26 mars 2020 (affaire R 2430/2019‑2), concernant une demande d’enregistrement du signe verbal GEWÜRZSOMMELIER comme marque de l’Union européenne, LE TRIBUNAL (neuvième chambre), composé de Mmes M. J. Costeira, présidente, M. Kancheva (rapporteure) et M. B. Berke, juges, greffier : M. E. Coulon, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 5 juin 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 2 octobre 2020, vu l’absence de demande de fixation d’une audience présentée par les parties dans le délai de trois semaines à compter de la signification de la clôture de la phase écrite de la procédure et ayant décidé, en application de l’article 106, paragraphe 3, du règlement de procédure du Tribunal, de statuer sans phase orale de la procédure, rend le présent Arrêt Antécédents du litige 1. Le 8 février 2019, le requérant, Freistaat Bayern (Land de Bavière, Allemagne), a présenté une demande ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber) 28. April 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark Pandem – Earlier national and international word marks PANDA – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) In Case T‑191/20, FCA Italy SpA, established in Turin (Italy), represented by F. Jacobacci and E. Truffo, lawyers, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being Christoph Bettag, residing in Aachen (Germany), represented by M. Metzner, A. Hönninger and M. Zeis, lawyers, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2020 (Case R 1483/2019‑5), relating to opposition proceedings between FCA Italy and Mr Bettag, THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber), composed of M.J. Costeira, President, M. Kancheva and T. Perišin (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 9 April 2020, having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 16 July 2020, having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Court Registry on 3 September 2020, having regard to the fact that no request for a hearing was submitted by the parties within three weeks after service of notification of the close of the written part ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL ARRÊT DU TRIBUNAL (dixième chambre) 21 avril 2021 (*) « Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure de nullité – Marque de l’Union européenne verbale APO – Motifs absolus de refus – Caractère descriptif – Article 7, paragraphe 1, sous c), du règlement (CE) no 207/2009 [devenu article 7, paragraphe 1, sous c), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001] – Absence de caractère distinctif – Article 7, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement no 207/2009 [devenu article 7, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement 2017/1001] » Dans l’affaire T‑282/20, Apologistics GmbH, établie à Markkleeberg (Allemagne), représentée par Mes H. Hug et S. Schreiber, avocats, partie requérante, contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), représenté par M. M. Eberl et Mme A. Söder, en qualité d’agents, partie défenderesse, l’autre partie à la procédure devant la chambre de recours de l’EUIPO, intervenant devant le Tribunal, étant Markus Kerckhoff, demeurant à Bergisch Gladbach (Allemagne), représenté par Me M. Douglas, avocat, ayant pour objet un recours formé contre la décision de la cinquième chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 25 février 2020 (affaire R 982/2019-5), relative à une procédure de nullité entre M. Kerckhoff et Apologistics, LE TRIBUNAL (dixième chambre), composé de MM. A. Kornezov, président, E. Buttigieg et G. Hesse (rapporteur), juges, greffier : M. E. Coulon, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 13 mai 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse de l’EUIPO déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 23 juillet 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL ARRÊT DU TRIBUNAL (sixième chambre) 21 avril 2021 (*) « Marque de l’Union européenne – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne figurative MEN+ – Motif absolu de refus – Absence de caractère distinctif – Article 7, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001 – Examen des faits – Article 95, paragraphe 1, du règlement 2017/1001 – Obligation de motivation » Dans l’affaire T‑345/20, Robert Klingel OHG, établie à Pforzheim (Allemagne), représentée par Me M. Zick, avocat, partie requérante, contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), représenté par M. D. Hanf, en qualité d’agent, partie défenderesse, ayant pour objet un recours formé contre la décision de la première chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 27 mars 2020 (affaire R 1906/2019-1), concernant une demande d’enregistrement du signe figuratif MEN+ comme marque de l’Union européenne, LE TRIBUNAL (sixième chambre), composé de Mme A. Marcoulli (rapporteure), présidente, MM. C. Iliopoulos et R. Norkus, juges, greffier : M. E. Coulon, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 4 juin 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 21 août 2020, vu l’absence de demande de fixation d’une audience présentée par les parties dans le délai de trois semaines à compter de la signification de la clôture de la phase écrite de la procédure et ayant décidé, en application de l’article 106, paragraphe 3, du règlement de procédure du Tribunal, de statuer sans phase orale de la procédure, rend le présent Arrêt Antécédents ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело C-***/**: *****************, Определение от **.**.2021 г.
Повдига ли жалбата въпрос от съществено значение за единството, последователността или развитието на правото на Европейския съюз, който да обоснове допускане до разглеждане?
Спазени ли са изискванията за ясно и подробно посочване на правните основания, конкретните правни въпроси и тяхната значимост съгласно приложимите разпоредби и съдебна практика?
Достатъчно ли са аргументирани твърденията за нарушение на принципите на равно третиране, добра администрация и разпределението на доказателствената тежест, за да бъдат приети като въпроси от значение извън конкретния случай?
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber) 10. March 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark PUMA-System – Earlier EU figurative marks PUMA – Relative ground for refusal – Detriment to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) In Case T‑71/20, Puma SE, established in Herzogenaurach (Germany), represented by P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by D. Gája and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being CAMäleon Produktionsautomatisierung GmbH, established in Dettenhausen (Germany), ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2019 (Case R 404/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Puma and CAMäleon Produktionsautomatisierung, THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Marcoulli (Rapporteur), President, J. Schwarcz and C. Iliopoulos, Judges, Registrar: J. Pichon, Administrator, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 6 February 2020, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 22 April 2020, further to the hearing on 21 October 2020, gives the following Judgment Background to the dispute 1. On 1 June 2017, CAMäleon Produktionsautomatisierung GmbH filed an application for registration of an EU trade mark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (OJ ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Търсене
Въведете само основните думи/цифри от израза, който търсите. Избягвайте съюзи и предлози като "и", "или", "от", "на", "по", "за" и др.
Пример 1: Ако търсите практика за израза "погасяване на наказателна отговорност по давност", въведете само "погасяване наказателна отговорност давност".
Пример 2: Ако търсите конкретен съдебен акт, напр. "Съдебно решение, 26/03/2026, Aurnois, C-239/24", въведете само номера и годината на делото: "239/24".
Обикновено, търсеният от Вас акт ще бъде сред бързите резултати, появяващи се непосредствено под полето за търсене.
Модул "СЕС"
Отговорът на въпроса, който искате да прочетете е част от съдържанието с добавена стойност на "Българското прецедентно право" – Модул "СЕС", което е достъпно само за абонати.
За да достъпите пълния текст на съдебните актове е необходимо да се абонирате за Модул "НПК".
** Осреднена цена за годишен абонамент с функционалност "Стандарт" за модули "ГПК"/"НПК".
В случай, че не сте сигурни какви ползи ще Ви донесе абонамента, можете да заявите напълно безплатен и неограничен пробен достъп за 7 дни*
*Пробният достъп е еднократен и предназначен само за нови потребители, които нямат профил в системата. Активирането му подлежи на предварително одобрение от редакторите ни.
Отзиви от нашите клиенти
Поздравления за полагания труд на целия екип на "Българско прецедентно право", който винаги съумява да предостави актуална информация по иначе променливата съдебна практика! Всичко написано е ясно, точно и разбираемо!
Продължавайте в същия дух и винаги се стремете към още по-голямо усъвършенстване!
Успех!
– Бети Дерменджиева, адвокат
Много полезно, държите винаги информиран за най-новите решения на ВКС! Лично аз съм се абонирала и получавам на електронната си поща цялата нова практика на върховната ни съдебна инстанция. Препоръчвам "Българско прецедентно право" на всички колеги!
– Десислава Филипова, адвокат
Всеки трябва да го има. Е, не всеки, само който истински упражнява професията.
– Валентина Иванова
Поздравления за екипа! Винаги представяте най - новата и интересна съдебна практика! Изключително полезни сте и ви следя с интерес!
– Христина Русева, адвокат
Dictum - Pro Bono
Получавайте най-важното от съдебната практика във Вашата електронна пощенска кутия.