- 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-80/17: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2017 — Steiniger v EUIPO — ista Deutschland (IST) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark IST — Prior EU figurative mark ISTA — Relative ground for refusal — Relevant public — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TA0080
62017TA0080
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 437/31
(Case T-80/17)(1)
((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark IST - Prior EU figurative mark ISTA - Relative ground for refusal - Relevant public - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2017/C 437/38)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Ingo Steiniger (Nümbrecht, Germany) (represented by: K. Schulze Horn, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Mensing and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ista Deutschland GmbH (Essen, Germany) (represented by: F. Lindenberg, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 (Case R 2242/2015-5) concerning opposition proceedings between ista Deutschland and Mr Steiniger.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Mr Ingo Steiniger to pay the costs.
OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.