- 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-193/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Cristiano di Thiene v OHIM — Nautica Apparel (AERONAUTICA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark AERONAUTICA — Earlier Community word marks NAUTICA and NAUTICA BLUE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TA0193
62014TA0193
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 389/44
(Case T-193/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark AERONAUTICA - Earlier Community word marks NAUTICA and NAUTICA BLUE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 389/47)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Cristiano di Thiene SpA (Thiene, Italy) (represented by: F. Fischetti and F. Celluprica, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nautica Apparel, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: C. Hawkes, Solicitor, and B. Brandreth, Barrister)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2014 (Case R 96/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Nautica Apparel, Inc. and Cristiano di Thiene SpA.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Cristiano di Thiene SpA to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.