4.11.03.02.07.02.02 - Заявени фигуративни марки
Заявени фигуративни марки
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 representing a fish – Earlier national word mark BLINKA – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) In Case T‑354/20, Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes mbH, established in Bonn (Germany), represented by N. Hebeis, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by L. Lapinskaite, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being The Blink Fish Srl, established in Milan (Italy), ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 (Case R 2333/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes and The Blink Fish, THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber), composed of V. Tomljenović, President, F. Schalin and P. Škvařilová-Pelzl (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 4 June 2020, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 24 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 of the procedure, and having decided to rule on the action without an ... 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) 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. February 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark PANTHÉ – Earlier national word and figurative marks PANTHER and earlier EU figurative mark P PANTHER – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark) In Case T‑117/20, El Corte Inglés, SA, established in Madrid (Spain), represented by J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by L. Rampini, acting as Agent, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being MKR Design Srl, established in Milan (Italy), represented by G. Dragotti, lawyer, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 December 2019 (Case R 378/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés and MKR Design, THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber), composed of A. Kornezov, President, E. Buttigieg (Rapporteur) and K. Kowalik-Bańczyk, Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 21 February 2020, having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 2 July 2020, having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Court Registry on 9 July 2020, having regard to the fact that no request for a hearing was submitted by ... 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) 20. January 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark BE EDGY BERLIN – Earlier national word mark EDJI – 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)) In Case T‑329/19, 12seasons GmbH, established in Berlin (Germany), represented by M. Gail, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by L. Rampini 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 Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny, established in Roanne (France), represented by A. Grolée, lawyer, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 (Case R 1522/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny and 12seasons, THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber), composed of A.M. Collins, President, V. Kreuschitz and G. Steinfatt (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 31 May 2019, having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 31 October 2019, having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Court Registry on 3 December 2019, having regard to the request for a hearing lodged by the applicant and having decided, pursuant to Article 106(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General ... 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 BBQLOUMI – Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI – Relative ground for refusal – No 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‑328/17 RENV, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi, established in Nicosia (Cyprus), represented by S. Malynicz QC, V. Marsland, Solicitor, and S. Barran, Barrister, 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, intervener before the General Court, being M. J. Dairies EOOD, established in Sofia (Bulgaria), represented by D. Dimitrova, avocate, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2017 (Case R 497/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between the Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and M. J. Dairies, 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 written part of the procedure and further to the hearing on 29 September 2020, gives the following Judgment Background to the dispute 1. On 9 July 2014, the intervener, M. J. Dairies EOOD, filed an application for registration of an EU trade mark with ... 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 (Third Chamber) 20. January 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark CABEÇA DE TOIRO – Earlier EU word mark SANGRE DE TORO – 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)) In Case T‑811/19, Enoport – Produção de Bebidas Lda, established in Rio Maior (Portugal), represented by J. Alves Coelho, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being Miguel Torres, SA, established in Vilafranca del Penedès (Spain), represented by M. Ceballos Rodríguez and M. Robledo McClymont, lawyers, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2019 (Case R 394/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres and Enoport – Produção de Bebidas, THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber), composed of A.M. Collins, President, V. Kreuschitz (Rapporteur) and Z. Csehi, Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 22 November 2019, having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 14 May 2020, having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Court Registry on 8 May 2020, having regard to the fact that no request for a hearing was submitted by the parties within ... 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.