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
(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a fish - Earlier national word mark BLINKA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2021/C 217/57)
Language of the case: English
Applicant: Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes mbH (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: The Blink Fish Srl (Milan, Italy)
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 (Case R 2333/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes and The Blink Fish.
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes mbH to pay the costs.
OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.