4.11.03 - Марка на Европейския съюз
Марка на Европейския съюз
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.
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.
DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL ARRÊT DU TRIBUNAL (troisième chambre) 10 mars 2021 (*) « Marque de l’Union européenne – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne verbale MaxWear – Motif absolu de refus – Absence de caractère distinctif – Article 7, paragraphe 1, sous b), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001 » Dans l’affaire T‑99/20, Golvabia Innovation AB, établie à Anderstorp (Suède), représentée par Me D. Thorbjörnsson, avocat, partie requérante, contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), représenté par MM. T. von Schantz et J. Crespo Carrillo, en qualité d’agents, partie défenderesse, ayant pour objet un recours formé contre la décision de la première chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 19 décembre 2019 (affaire R 888/2019-1), concernant une demande d’enregistrement du signe verbal MaxWear comme marque de l’Union européenne, LE TRIBUNAL (troisième chambre), composé de MM. A. M. Collins, président, V. Kreuschitz (rapporteur) et G. De Baere, juges, greffier : M. E. Coulon, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 19 février 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 3 juin 2020, vu la mesure d’organisation de la procédure du 30 novembre 2020 et la réponse de l’EUIPO déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 21 décembre 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 procédure ... 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 (Sixth Chamber) 10. March 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark PUMA-System – Earlier EU figurative marks PUMA – Relative ground for refusal – Detriment to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) In Case T‑71/20, 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. Gája and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being CAMäleon Produktionsautomatisierung GmbH, established in Dettenhausen (Germany), ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2019 (Case R 404/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Puma and CAMäleon Produktionsautomatisierung, THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Marcoulli (Rapporteur), President, J. Schwarcz and C. Iliopoulos, Judges, Registrar: J. Pichon, Administrator, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 6 February 2020, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 22 April 2020, further to the hearing on 21 October 2020, gives the following Judgment Background to the dispute 1. On 1 June 2017, CAMäleon Produktionsautomatisierung GmbH filed an application for registration of an EU trade mark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (OJ ... 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) 3. March 2021 (*) (EU trade mark – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark Heartfulness – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) In Case T‑48/20, Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation, established in Manapakkam (India), represented by E. Manresa Medina, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by E. Sliwinska and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents, defendant, ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2019 (Case R 1266/2019-4), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark Heartfulness, THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Marcoulli, President, S. Frimodt Nielsen and R. Norkus (Rapporteur), Judges, Registrar: E. Coulon, having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 28 January 2020, having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 23 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 1. On 19 April 2018, the applicant, Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation, designated the European Union for international registration No 1433232. That ... Прочетете още
Отговорът на въпроса е достъпен само за нашите абонати.
Дело T-***/**: *****************, Определение от **.**.2021 г.
DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL ORDONNANCE DU TRIBUNAL (sixième chambre) 25 février 2021 (*) « Recours en annulation – Marque de l’Union européenne – Demande de marque de l’Union européenne verbale ULTRASUN – Motif absolu de refus – Caractère descriptif – Article 7, paragraphe 1, sous c), du règlement (UE) 2017/1001 – Recours manifestement dépourvu de tout fondement en droit » Dans l’affaire T‑437/20, Ultrasun AG, établie à Zurich (Suisse), représentée par Mes A. von Mühlendahl et H. Hartwig, avocats, 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 quatrième chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 27 avril 2020 (affaire R 1453/2019-4), concernant une demande d’enregistrement du signe verbal ULTRASUN comme marque de l’Union européenne, LE TRIBUNAL (sixième chambre), composé de Mme A. Marcoulli (rapporteure), présidente, MM. J. Schwarcz et C. Iliopoulos, juges, greffier : M. E. Coulon, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 13 juillet 2020, vu le mémoire en réponse déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 21 septembre 2020, vu la décision du 8 septembre 2020 rejetant la demande de jonction des affaires T‑805/19 et T‑437/20, rend la présente Ordonnance Antécédents du litige 1. Le 11 mai 2018, la requérante, Ultrasun AG, 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 (UE) 2017/1001 du Parlement européen et du ... 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) 24 février 2021 (*) « Marque de l’Union européenne – Enregistrement international désignant l’Union européenne – Marque figurative El Clasico – Motifs absolus de refus – Absence de caractère distinctif – Caractère descriptif – Absence de caractère distinctif acquis par l’usage – Article 7, paragraphe 1, sous b) et c), et paragraphe 3, du règlement (CE) no 207/2009 [devenu article 7, paragraphe 1, sous b) et c), et paragraphe 3, du règlement (UE) 2017/1001] » Dans l’affaire T‑809/19, Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional, établie à Madrid (Espagne), représentée par Mes C. Casas Feu et C. J. Riesco Losa, avocats partie requérante, contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO), représenté par Mmes S. Palmero Cabezas et A. Crawcour, en qualité d’agents, partie défenderesse, ayant pour objet un recours formé contre la décision de la deuxième chambre de recours de l’EUIPO du 1er octobre 2019 (affaire R 1966/2018-2), concernant l’enregistrement international désignant l’Union européenne de la marque figurative El Clasico, LE TRIBUNAL (deuxième chambre), composé de Mme V. Tomljenović (rapporteure), présidente, MM. J. Schwarcz et F. Schalin, juges, greffier : M. J. Palacio González, administrateur, vu la requête déposée au greffe du Tribunal le 22 novembre 2019, vu le mémoire en réponse déposé au greffe du Tribunal le 6 mars 2020, vu la question écrite du Tribunal aux parties et leurs réponses déposées au greffe du Tribunal les 20 et 22 juillet 2020, vu la désignation d’un autre juge pour compléter ... 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.