4.11.03.02.02.01 - Съответни потребители
Съответни потребители
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber) 24. March 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese/grill est/grill kase M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927 – Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI – Relative ground for refusal – Bad faith – Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now article 60(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001)) In Case T‑282/19, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi, established in Nicosia (Cyprus), represented by S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by D. Gája, acting as Agent, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being Filotas Bellas & Yios AE, established in Alexandreia Imathias (Greece), ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2019 (Case R 2295/2017‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Filotas Bellas & Yios, THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber), composed of V. Tomljenović, President, F. Schalin (Rapporteur) and P. Škvařilová‑Pelzl, Judges, Registrar: A. Juhász-Tóth, Administrator, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 30 April 2019, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber) 10. March 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark HAUZ NEW YORK – Earlier EU word mark HOUZZ – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) In Case T‑67/20, Hauz 1929 Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom), represented by N. Lyberis, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by V. Ruzek, acting as Agent, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being Houzz, Inc., established in Palo Alto, California (United States), ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 (Case R 886/2019‑5), relating to opposition proceedings between Houzz and Hauz 1929, THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber), composed of A. Kornezov, President, K. Kowalik-Bańczyk and G. Hesse (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 3 February 2020, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 16 April 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 on the action without an oral part of the procedure, pursuant to Article 106(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, gives the following Judgment Background to the dispute ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber) 10. March 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark HAUZ LONDON – Earlier EU word mark HOUZZ – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) In Case T‑66/20, Hauz 1929 Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom), represented by N. Lyberis, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by V. Ruzek, acting as Agent, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being Houzz, Inc., established in Palo Alto, California (United States), ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 (Case R 884/2019‑5), relating to opposition proceedings between Houzz and Hauz 1929, THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber), composed of A. Kornezov, President, K. Kowalik-Bańczyk and G. Hesse (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 4 February 2020, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 16 April 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 on the action without an oral part of the procedure, pursuant to Article 106(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, gives the following Judgment Background to the dispute 1. ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber) 10. March 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark HAUZ EST 1929 – Earlier EU word mark HOUZZ – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) In Case T‑68/20, Hauz 1929 Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom), represented by N. Lyberis, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by V. Ruzek, acting as Agent, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being Houzz, Inc., established in Palo Alto, California (United States), ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 (Case R 885/2019‑5), relating to opposition proceedings between Houzz and Hauz 1929, THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber), composed of A. Kornezov, President, K. Kowalik-Bańczyk and G. Hesse (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 4 February 2020, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 16 April 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 on the action without an oral part of the procedure, pursuant to Article 106(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, gives the following Judgment Background to the dispute ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber) 24. February 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark VROOM – Earlier national word mark POP & VROOM – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) In Case T‑56/20, Bezos Family Foundation, established in Seattle, Washington (United States), represented by A. Klett, M. Schaffner and M. Lambert Maillard, lawyers, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being SNCF Mobilités, établissement public à caractère industriel et commercial, established in Saint-Denis (France), ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2019 (Case R 1288/2019‑5), relating to opposition proceedings between SNCF Mobilités and Bezos Family Foundation, THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber), composed of A. Kornezov, President, K. Kowalik-Bańczyk (Rapporteur) and G. Hesse, Judges, Registrar: A. Juhász-Tóth, Administrator, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 3 February 2020, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 21 April 2020, further to the hearing on 12 November 2020, gives the following Judgment Background to the dispute 1. On 6 December 2017, the applicant, Bezos Family Foundation, filed an application for registration of an EU trade mark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL ARRÊT DU TRIBUNAL (troisième chambre) 24 février 2021 (*) « Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure d’opposition – Enregistrement international désignant l’Union européenne – Marque verbale B-Direct – Marque de l’Union européenne figurative antérieure bizdirect – Motif relatif de refus – Risque de confusion – Article 8, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (CE) no 207/2009 [devenu article 8, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001] » Dans l’affaire T‑61/20, Sonova AG, établie à Stäfa (Suisse), représentée par Me A. Sabellek, avocat, partie requérante, contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), représenté par Mmes R. Manea et A. Söder, en qualité d’agents, partie défenderesse, l’autre partie à la procédure devant la chambre de recours de l’EUIPO ayant été Digitmarket – Sistemas de lnformação SA, établie à Maia (Portugal), ayant pour objet un recours formé contre la décision de la première chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 28 novembre 2019 (affaire R 88/2019‑1), relative à une procédure d’opposition entre Digitmarket – Sistemas de Informação et Sonova, LE TRIBUNAL (troisième chambre), composé de MM. A. M. Collins, président, G. De Baere et Mme G. Steinfatt (rapporteure), juges, greffier : M. E. Coulon, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 3 février 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 7 mai 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 ... 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) 20 janvier 2021 (*) « Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure d’opposition – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne figurative discount-ap*theke.de – Marques de l’Union européenne verbales antérieures APODISCOUNTER et APO et figuratives antérieures apo-discounter.de, apo.co et apo.de – Motif relatif de refus – Absence de risque de confusion – Article 8, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (CE) no 207/2009 [devenu article 8, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001] » Dans l’affaire T‑844/19, Apologistics GmbH, établie à Markkleeberg (Allemagne), représentée par Me H. Hug, avocat, partie requérante, contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), représenté par Mme A. Söder, en qualité d’agent, partie défenderesse, l’autre partie à la procédure devant la chambre de recours de l’EUIPO, intervenant devant le Tribunal, étant Franz Michael Peikert, demeurant à Offenbach (Allemagne), représenté par Me T. Bruggmann, avocat, ayant pour objet un recours formé contre la décision de la cinquième chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 10 octobre 2019 (affaire R 2309/2018-5), relative à une procédure d’opposition entre Apologistics et M. Peikert, LE TRIBUNAL (sixième chambre), composé de Mme A. Marcoulli, présidente, MM. C. Iliopoulos et R. Norkus (rapporteur), juges, greffier : M. E. Coulon, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 12 décembre 2019, vu le mémoire en réponse de l’EUIPO déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 18 mars 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse de l’intervenant déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 7 mars 2020, vu ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber) 20. January 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA – Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Relevant public – Similarity of the goods and services – Similarity of the signs – Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) In Case T‑831/19, Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s., established in Ústí nad Labem (Czech Republic), represented by T. Chleboun, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being Bacardi & Co. Ltd, established in Meyrin (Switzerland), represented by A. Parassina, lawyer, ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 2533/2018‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bacardi & Co. and Palírna U Zeléného stromu, THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber), composed of V. Tomljenović, President, F. Schalin and I. Nõmm (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 4 December 2019, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 12 May 2020, having regard to the decision of 2 April 2020 joining Cases T‑829/19 to T‑831/19 for the ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber) 20. January 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA – Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Relevant public – Similarity of the goods and services – Similarity of the signs – Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) In Case T‑830/19, Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s., established in Ústí nad Labem (Czech Republic), represented by T. Chleboun, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being Bacardi & Co. Ltd, established in Meyrin (Switzerland), represented by A. Parassina, lawyer, ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 2532/2018‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bacardi & Co. and Palírna U Zeléného stromu, THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber), composed of V. Tomljenović, President, F. Schalin and I. Nõmm (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 4 December 2019, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 12 May 2020, having regard to the decision of 2 April 2020 joining Cases T‑829/19 to T‑831/19 for the purposes of the ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber) 20. January 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA – Earlier EU word mark and international figurative mark 42 BELOW – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Relevant public – Similarity of the goods and services – Similarity of the signs – Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) In Case T‑829/19, Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s., established in Ústí nad Labem (Czech Republic), represented by T. Chleboun, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being Bacardi & Co. Ltd, established in Meyrin (Switzerland), represented by A. Parassina, lawyer, ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 2531/2018‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bacardi & Co. and Palírna U Zeléného stromu, THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber), composed of V. Tomljenović, President, F. Schalin and I. Nõmm (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 4 December 2019, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 12 May 2020, having regard to the decision of 2 April 2020 joining Cases T‑829/19 to T‑831/19 for the purposes of the ... 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.