I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(Case T-258/08) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Diacor - Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings - Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)))
(2017/C 070/20)
Language of the case: English
Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented by: U. Vogt, C. Kleiner and S. Ziegler, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Portela & Ca., SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal)
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2008 (Case R 1630/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Portela & Ca. and Mr Rath.
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Mr Matthias Rath to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.