- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-754/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2017 — Oakley v EUIPO — Xuebo Ye (Representation of a discontinuous ellipse) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing a silhouette in the shape of a discontinuous ellipse — Prior EU figurative mark representing an ellipse — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TA0754
62016TA0754
With us you find everything. Try it now!
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
18.12.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 437/29
(Case T-754/16)(1)
((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing a silhouette in the shape of a discontinuous ellipse - Prior EU figurative mark representing an ellipse - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2017/C 437/35)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Oakley, Inc. (Foothill Ranch, California, United States) (represented by: E. Ochoa Santamaría and V. Rodríguez Pombo, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Xuebo Ye (Wenzhou, China)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 (Case R 2608/2015-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Oakley and Xuebo Ye.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 31 August 2016 (Case R 2608/2015-4) insofar as it confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition inasmuch as it is based on the ground set out in Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark);
2.Dismisses the remainder of the action;
3.Orders each party to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.