4.11.03.02 - Относителни основания за отказ
Относителни основания за отказ
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.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL ARRÊT DU TRIBUNAL (deuxième chambre) 28 avril 2021 (*) « Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure d’opposition – Enregistrement international désignant l’Union européenne – Marque figurative HB Harley Benton – Marque de l’Union européenne verbale antérieure HB – Dénomination commerciale nationale antérieure – Motif relatif de refus – Risque de confusion – Article 8, paragraphe 1, sous b), et paragraphe 4, du règlement (UE) 2017/1001 » Dans l’affaire T‑284/20, Klaus Berthold Besitzgesellschaft GmbH & Co. KG, établie à Thalhausen (Allemagne), représentée par Me E. Strauß, avocat, partie requérante, contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), représenté par M. S. Hanne, en qualité d’agent, partie défenderesse, l’autre partie à la procédure devant la chambre de recours de l’EUIPO ayant été Thomann GmbH, établie à Burgebrach (Allemagne), ayant pour objet un recours formé contre la décision de la quatrième chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 11 mars 2020 (affaire R 1359/2019‑4), relative à une procédure d’opposition entre Thomann GmbH et Klaus Berthold Besitzgesellschaft GmbH & Co. KG, LE TRIBUNAL (deuxième chambre), composé de Mme V. Tomljenović (rapporteure), présidente, MM. F. Schalin et I. Nõmm, juges, greffier : M. E. Coulon, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 13 mai 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 22 juin 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 ... 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) 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 (Fifth Chamber) 28. April 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark VertiLight – Earlier national word mark VERTI – Relative ground for refusal – No damage to reputation – No link between the marks at issue – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) In Case T‑644/19, Linde Material Handling GmbH, established in Aschaffenburg (Germany), represented by J.‑C. Plate and R. Kaase, 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 Verti Aseguradora, Compañía de seguros y reaseguros, SA, established in Madrid (Spain), represented by A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyer, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 July 2019 (Case R 1849/2018‑5), relating to opposition proceedings between Verti Aseguradora, Compañía de seguros y reaseguros, and Linde Material Handling, THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber), composed of D. Spielmann, President, U. Öberg (Rapporteur) and O. Spineanu‑Matei, Judges, Registrar: J. Pichon, Administrator, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 26 September 2019, having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 5 December 2019, having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Court Registry on 18 December 2019, further to the hearing on 7 December ... 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 – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark FLÜGEL – Earlier national word marks … VERLEIHT FLÜGEL and RED BULL VERLEIHT FLÜÜÜGEL – Relative grounds for refusal – Damage to reputation – Article 8(5) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Right to be heard – Article 70(2) and Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) In Case T‑509/19, Asolo LTD, established in Limassol (Cyprus), represented by W. Pors and N. Dorenbosch, lawyers, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by M. Capostagno 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 Red Bull GmbH, established in Fuschl am See (Austria), represented by A. Renck and S. Petivlasova, lawyers, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2019 (Case R 201/2019‑4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Red Bull and Asolo, THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber), composed of M.J. Costeira, President, D. Gratsias and T. Perišin (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: R. Ūkelytė, Administrator, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 16 July 2019, having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 17 October 2019, having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Court Registry on 31 October 2019, further to the ... 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.
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.
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.