4.11.03.02.07 - Проверявани знаци
Проверявани знаци
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber) 28. April 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark ACCUSÌ – Earlier EU word mark ACÚSTIC – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) In Case T‑300/20, Nosio SpA, established in Mezzocorona (Italy), represented by J. Graffer, G. Rubino and A. Ottolini, lawyers, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by A. Söder and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being Tros del Beto, SLU, established in Marçà (Spain), ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2020 (Case R 871/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Tros del Belo and Nosio, THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber), composed of D. Spielmann, President, U. Öberg (Rapporteur) and R. Mastroianni, Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 22 May 2020, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 4 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, pursuant to Article 106(3) ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
ARRÊT DU TRIBUNAL (deuxième chambre) 28 avril 2021 (*) « Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure d’opposition – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne figurative The King of SOHO – Marque de l’Union européenne verbale antérieure SOHO – Motif relatif de refus – Risque de confusion – Article 8, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001 » Dans l’affaire T‑31/20, West End Drinks Ltd, établie à Londres (Royaume-Uni), représentée par MM. C. Hawkes, solicitor, C. Hall, barrister, et Me B. Niemann Fadani, avocate, partie requérante, contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), représenté par M. V. Ruzek, 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 Pernod Ricard, établie à Paris (France), représentée par Me T. de Haan, avocat, ayant pour objet un recours formé contre la décision de la première chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 16 octobre 2019 (affaire R 1543/2018-1), relative à une procédure d’opposition entre Pernod Ricard et West End Drinks, LE TRIBUNAL (deuxième chambre), composé de Mmes V. Tomljenović, présidente, P. Škvařilová‑Pelzl et M. I. Nõmm (rapporteur), juges, greffier : Mme J. Pichon, administratrice, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 20 janvier 2020, vu les observations de l’intervenante sur le choix de la langue de procédure déposées au greffe du Tribunal le 5 février 2020, vu le constat du greffe du Tribunal du 14 février 2020 quant à l’utilisation de la langue de la décision ... 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) 21. April 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark GRILLOUMI – Earlier EU collective word mark HALLOUMI – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Detriment to reputation – Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) In Case T‑555/19, 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, intervener before the General Court, being Fontana Food AB, established in Tyresö (Sweden), represented by P. Nihlmark and L. Zacharoff, lawyers, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 May 2019 (Case R 1355/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi and Fontana Food, 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 9 August 2019, having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Court Registry on 18 October 2019, having regard to the decision of 23 October 2019 to stay ... 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) 21. April 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark representing a circle containing two interlaced curves – Earlier national figurative mark representing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally – Earlier national figurative mark representing a circle containing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity between the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – No damage to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)) In Case T‑44/20, Chanel, established in Neuilly sur-Seine (France), represented by J. Passa, lawyer, 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 Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd, established in Shenzhen (China), represented by M. Edenborough, QC, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2019 (Case R 1041/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Chanel and Huawei Technologies, THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber), composed of D. Spielmann, President, U. Öberg and R. Mastroianni (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 27 January 2020, having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 17 July 2020, having ... 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) 14 avril 2021 (*) « Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure d’opposition – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne figurative GHISU – Marque collective nationale figurative antérieure CHIANTI CLASSICO – Motif relatif de refus – Article 8, paragraphe 5, du règlement (CE) no 207/2009 [devenu article 8, paragraphe 5, du règlement (UE) 2017/1001] – Profit indûment tiré du caractère distinctif ou de la renommée de la marque antérieure » Dans l’affaire T‑201/20, Berebene Srl, établie à Rome (Italie), représentée par Me A. Massimiani, avocat, partie requérante, contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), représenté par Mme M. Capostagno, 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 Consorzio vino Chianti Classico, établie à Radda in Chianti (Italie), représentée par Mes S. Corona et F. Corona, avocats, ayant pour objet un recours formé contre la décision de la première chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 23 janvier 2020 (affaire R 592/2019-1), relative à une procédure d’opposition entre Consorzio vino Chianti Classico et Berebene, LE TRIBUNAL (dixième chambre), composé de MM. A. Kornezov, président, E. Buttigieg (rapporteur) et Mme K. Kowalik‑Bańczyk, juges, greffier : M. E. Coulon, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 6 avril 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 ... 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) 24 mars 2021 (*) « Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure d’opposition – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne verbale SANOLIE – Marque nationale verbale antérieure SANODIN – 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‑175/20, Laboratorios Ern, SA, établie à Barcelone (Espagne), représentée par Me R. Guerras Mazón, avocat, partie requérante, contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), représenté par Mme S. Palmero Cabezas, en qualité d’agent, partie défenderesse, l’autre partie à la procédure devant la chambre de recours de l’EUIPO ayant été Sanolie, établie à Istanbul (Turquie), ayant pour objet un recours formé contre la décision de la quatrième chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 22 janvier 2020 (affaire R 2405/2018-4), relative à une procédure d’opposition entre Laboratorios Ern et Sanolie, LE TRIBUNAL (dixième chambre), composé de MM. A. Kornezov, président, E. Buttigieg et Mme K. Kowalik‑Bańczyk (rapporteure), juges, greffier : M. E. Coulon, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 31 mars 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 9 juillet 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 ... 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) 24. March 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark CREATHERM – Earlier international word mark CERETHERM – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) In Case T‑168/20, Creaton South-East Europe Kft., established in Lenti (Hungary), represented by J. Muyldermans and P. Maeyaert, lawyers, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by E. Markakis and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, established in Düsseldorf (Germany), ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2020 (Case R 1090/2019‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Henkel and Creaton South-East Europe, THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Marcoulli, President, C. Iliopoulos and R. Norkus (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 20 March 2020, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 8 July 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 (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 (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) 17. March 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark THE TIME – Earlier EU word mark TIMEHOUSE – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) In Case T‑186/20, Chatwal Hotels & Resorts LLC, established in New York, New York (United States), represented by N. Hine, solicitor, 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 Timehouse Capital GmbH, established in Grasbrunn (Germany), represented by T. Farkas, lawyer, ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 January 2020 (Case R 2264/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Timehouse Capital and Chatwal Hotels & Resorts, THE GENERAL COURT (Tenth Chamber), composed of A. Kornezov, President, E. Buttigieg and G. Hesse (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 3 April 2020, having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 8 July 2020, having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Court Registry on 10 July 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 ... 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.