4.11.03.02.07.02 - Вероятност от объркване с по-ранна марка
Вероятност от объркване с по-ранна марка
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber) 16. June 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark MILEY CYRUS – Earlier EU figurative mark CYRUS – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) In Case T‑368/20, Smiley Miley, Inc., established in Nashville, Tennessee (United States), represented by J.‑B. Devaureix, 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 Cyrus Trademarks Ltd, established in Road Town (British Virgin Islands), ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 (Case R 2520/2018‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Cyrus Trademarks and Smiley Miley, 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 12 June 2020, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 7 October 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-***/**: *****************, Определение от **.**.2021 г.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber) 16. June 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark GT8 – Earlier EU figurative mark GT – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Relevant public – Level of attention – Action manifestly well founded) In Case T‑420/20, Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom), represented by S. Malynicz QC and M. Maier, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd, established in Shenzhen (China), ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 (Case R 1611/2019‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe and Huawei Technologies, THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber), composed of M.J. Costeira (Rapporteur), President, D. Gratsias and T. Perišin, Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 7 July 2020, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 24 November 2020, having regard to the measure of organisation of procedure of 2 March 2021 and the responses of the applicant and EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 12 March 2021, makes the ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Определение от **.**.2021 г.
DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL ORDONNANCE DU TRIBUNAL (troisième chambre) 21 mai 2021 (*) « Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure d’opposition – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne verbale Breeze – Marque de l’Union européenne verbale antérieure Breeze – Motif relatif de refus – Comparaison des produits – Risque de confusion – Article 8, paragraphe 1, sous a) et b), du règlement (CE) no 207/2009 [devenu article 8, paragraphe 1, sous a) et b), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001] – Recours manifestement dépourvu de tout fondement en droit » Dans l’affaire T‑158/20, TrekStor Ltd, établie à Hong Kong (Chine), représentée par Mes O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, N. Willich et N. Achilles, avocats, 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 ayant été Yuneec Europe GmbH, établie à Kaltenkirchen (Allemagne), ayant pour objet un recours formé contre la décision de la quatrième chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 14 janvier 2020 (affaire R 470/2020-4), relative à une procédure d’opposition entre Yuneec Europe et TrekStor, LE TRIBUNAL (troisième chambre), composé de MM. A. M. Collins, président, Z. Csehi et G. De Baere (rapporteur), juges, greffier : M. E. Coulon, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 20 mars 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 22 septembre 2020, rend la présente Ordonnance Antécédents du litige 1. Le 15 février 2017, la ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber) 19. May 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark kugoo – Earlier EU and national word marks KUGA and earlier EU word mark KUGA ENERGI – 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‑324/20, Yongkang Kugooo Technology Co. Ltd, established in Yongkang (China), represented by P. Pérot, 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 being: Ford Motor Company, established in Dearborn, Michigan (United States), ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2020 (Case R 65/2019‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Ford Motor Company and Yongkang Kugooo Technology, THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber), composed of D. Spielmann, President, U. Öberg and O. Spineanu‑Matei (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 26 May 2020, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 28 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 oral part of the procedure, ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber) 12. May 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the three-dimensional EU trade mark AQUA CARPATICA – Earlier three-dimensional EU and national trade marks VODAVODA – 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‑637/19, Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd, established in Singapore (Singapore), represented by M. Maček and C. Saettel, lawyers, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by J. Crespo Carrillo 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 Carpathian Springs SA, established in Vatra Dornei (Romania), represented by D. Bogdan, G. Bozocea and M. Stănescu, lawyers, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 August 2019 (Case R 317/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sun Stars & Sons and Carpathian Springs, THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber), composed of D. Spielmann (Rapporteur), President, U. Öberg and R. Norkus, Judges, Registrar: A. Juhász-Tóth, Administrator, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 25 September 2019, having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 17 December 2019, having regard to the intervener’s response lodged at the Court Registry on 12 December 2019, having regard to the decision of 15 July 2020 joining Cases T‑637/19 and ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber) 12. May 2021 (*) [Text rectified by order of 23 September 2021] (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the three-dimensional EU trade mark AC AQUA AC – Earlier three-dimensional EU and national trade marks VODAVODA – 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‑638/19, Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd, established in Singapore (Singapore), represented by M. Maček and C. Saettel, lawyers, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by J. Crespo Carrillo 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 Valvis Holding SA, established in Bucharest (Romania), represented by D. Bogdan, G. Bozocea and M. Stănescu, lawyers, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 August 2019 (Case R 649/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sun Stars & Sons and Valvis Holding, THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber), composed of D. Spielmann (Rapporteur), President, U. Öberg and R. Norkus, Judges, Registrar: A. Juhász-Tóth, Administrator, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 25 September 2019, having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 17 December 2019, having regard to the intervener’s response lodged at the Court Registry on 12 December 2019, having regard to the decision ... 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.
DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL ARRÊT DU TRIBUNAL (sixième chambre) 5 mai 2021 (*) « Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure d’opposition – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne verbale GOBI – Marque de l’Union européenne figurative antérieure COBI – 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] – Public pertinent » Dans l’affaire T‑286/20, Capella EOOD, établie à Sofia (Bulgarie), représentée par Me R. Klenke, avocat, partie requérante, contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), représenté par Mmes A. Graul et 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 Cobi.bike GmbH, établie à Francfort-sur-le-Main (Allemagne), représentée par Me A. Molnar, avocat, ayant pour objet un recours formé contre la décision de la deuxième chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 14 février 2020 (affaire R 1685/2019-2), relative à une procédure d’opposition entre Cobi.bike et Capella, LE TRIBUNAL (sixième chambre), composé de Mme A. Marcoulli (rapporteure), présidente, MM. J. Schwarcz et R. Norkus, juges, greffier : M. E. Coulon, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 15 mai 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse de l’EUIPO déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 3 août 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse de l’intervenante déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 10 août 2020, vu l’absence de demande de fixation d’une audience ... 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.
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.
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.