4.11.03.04.03 - Производство по обжалване
Производство по обжалване
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Определение от **.**.2021 г.
Компетентен ли е Общият съд по искане да разпореди регистрация на марка на Европейския съюз?
Описателен ли е характерът на словесните и фигуративните елементи на заявената марка по смисъла на член 7, параграф 1, буква в) от Регламент 2017/1001?
Може ли предходната практика на EUIPO да обоснове допустимостта на регистрация на марка в противоречие със съдебната практика и регламента?
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber) 9. June 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark CCA CHARTERED CONTROLLER ANALYST CERTIFICATE – Earlier EU word mark CFA and earlier EU figurative mark CFA CHARTERED FINANCIAL ANALYST – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Relevant public – Level of attention) In Case T‑266/20, Global Chartered Controller Institute SL, established in Alicante (Spain), represented by M. Pomares Caballero and T. Barber Giner, lawyers, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by P. Villani and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being CFA Institute, established in Charlottesville, Virginia (United States), represented by G. Engels and W. May, lawyers, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 (Case R 235/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between CFA Institute and Global Chartered Controller Institute, THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber), composed of M.J. Costeira, President, M. Kancheva (Rapporteur) and B. Berke, Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 8 May 2020, having regard to the response of EUIPO lodged at the Court Registry on 27 October 2020, having regard to the response of the intervener lodged at the Court Registry on 21 October 2020, having regard to the ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Съдебно решение от **.**.2021 г.
DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL ARRÊT DU TRIBUNAL (neuvième chambre) 19 mai 2021 (*) « Marque de l’Union européenne – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne figurative TIER SHOP – Motifs absolus de refus – Caractère descriptif – Absence de caractère distinctif – Article 7, paragraphe 1, sous b) et c), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001 – Intérêt à agir – Obligation de motivation – Article 72, paragraphe 4, et article 94, paragraphe 1, première phrase, du règlement 2017/1001 » Dans l’affaire T‑535/20, Müller GmbH & Co. KG, établie à Ulm (Allemagne), représentée par Me S. Mühlberger, avocat, partie requérante, contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), représenté par M. E. Markakis, en qualité d’agent, partie défenderesse, ayant pour objet un recours formé contre la décision de la cinquième chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 29 juin 2020 (affaire R 2600/2019‑5), concernant une demande d’enregistrement du signe figuratif TIER SHOP comme marque de l’Union européenne, LE TRIBUNAL (neuvième chambre), composé de Mmes M. J. Costeira, présidente, M. Kancheva (rapporteure) et T. Perišin, juges, greffier : M. E. Coulon, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 26 août 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 16 novembre 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 106, paragraphe 3, du règlement de ... 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) 19. May 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark representing a bounding feline – Earlier international figurative marks representing a bounding feline – Relative ground for refusal – No injury to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) In Case T‑510/19, Puma SE, established in Herzogenaurach (Germany), represented by P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by D. Hanf and S. Hanne, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being Gemma Group Srl, established in Cerasolo Ausa (Italy), ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2019 (Case R 2057/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Puma and Gemma Group, THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Marcoulli, President, J. Schwarcz and C. Iliopoulos (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: J. Pichon, Administrator, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 17 July 2019, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 10 October 2019, having regard to the written question put by the Court to the parties and their answers to that question lodged at the Court Registry on 5 and 19 May 2020, further to the hearing on 18 September 2020, gives the following Judgment Background to the dispute 1. On 14 February 2013, Gemma ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Определение от **.**.2021 г.
DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL ORDONNANCE DU TRIBUNAL (dixième chambre) 17 mai 2021 (*) « Recours en annulation – Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure d’opposition – Demande de nature déclaratoire – Demande d’injonction – Irrecevabilité » Dans l’affaire T‑328/20, Electrodomésticos Taurus, SL, établie à Oliana (Espagne), représentée par Me E. Manresa Medina, 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 Shenzhen Aukey E-Business Co. Ltd, établie à Shenzhen (Chine), ayant pour objet un recours formé relatif à la décision de la cinquième chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 23 mars 2020 (affaire R 2212/2019-5), relative à une procédure d’opposition entre Electrodomésticos Taurus et Shenzhen Aukey E-Business, LE TRIBUNAL (dixième chambre), composé de M. A. Kornezov, président, Mme K. Kowalik‑Bańczyk (rapporteure) et M. G. Hesse, juges, greffier : M. E. Coulon, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 29 mai 2020, vu l’exception d’irrecevabilité soulevée par l’EUIPO par acte déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 28 septembre 2020, rend la présente Ordonnance Antécédents du litige 1. Le 5 septembre 2017, Changchun Chengji Technology (devenue Shenzhen Aukey E-Business) a présenté une demande d’enregistrement de marque de l’Union européenne à l’Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), en vertu du règlement (CE) no 207/2009 du Conseil, du 26 février 2009, sur la marque de l’Union européenne (JO 2009, L 78, ... 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.
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.
ARRÊT DU TRIBUNAL (deuxième chambre) 28 avril 2021 (*) « Marque de l’Union européenne – Procédure de nullité – Marque de l’Union européenne figurative Choumicha Saveurs – Motif absolu de refus – Mauvaise foi – Déclaration de nullité – Article 52, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (CE) no 207/2009 [devenu article 59, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001] » Dans l’affaire T‑311/20, France Agro, établie à Avignon (France), représentée par Me C. de Haas, avocat, partie requérante, contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), représenté par MM. A. Folliard-Monguiral et V. Ruzek, 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 Choumicha Chafay, demeurant à Casablanca (Maroc), représentée par Me B. Lafont, avocate, ayant pour objet un recours formé contre la décision de la cinquième chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 9 mars 2020 (affaire R 1621/2019-5), relative à une procédure de nullité entre Mme Chafay et France Agro, 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 26 mai 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse de l’EUIPO déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 22 juillet 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse de l’intervenante déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 2 septembre 2020, vu la question écrite du Tribunal aux parties et leurs réponses à cette question ... 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.