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 (Ninth Chamber) 10. March 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark KERRYMAID – Earlier EU figurative mark Kerrygold – Relative ground for refusal – Geographical name – Dominant element – Peaceful coexistence – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Application of the law ratione temporis) In Case T‑693/19, Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl, established in Luxembourg (Luxembourg), represented by F. Traub, lawyer, and I. Connor, Solicitor, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by H. O’Neill 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 Ornua Co-operative Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland), represented by E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyers, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 July 2019 (Case R 2473/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Kerry Luxembourg and Ornua, THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber), composed of M.J. Costeira (Rapporteur), President, M. Kancheva and T. Perišin, Judges, Registrar: J. Pichon, Administrator, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 9 October 2019, having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 18 December 2019, having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Court Registry on 8 January 2020, further to the hearing on 18 November 2020, gives the following Judgment Background to the dispute 1. On 28 June ... 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.
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 (Ninth Chamber) 27. January 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark skylife – Earlier EU word mark SKY – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) In Case T‑382/19, Turk Hava Yollari AO, established in Istanbul (Turkey), represented by R. Almaraz Palmero, 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, intervener before the General Court, being Sky Ltd, established in Isleworth (United Kingdom), represented by A. Brackenbury, Solicitor, and A. Zalewska, lawyer, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2019 (Case R 880/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Sky and Turk Hava Yollari, THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber), composed of M.J. Costeira, President, M. Kancheva and T. Perišin (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: R. Ūkelytė, Administrator, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 25 June 2019, having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 16 September 2019, having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Court Registry on 13 September 2019, having regard to the request for a stay of proceedings brought by the applicant at the hearing on 2 July 2020, having regard to ... 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.
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.