- 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-410/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Vitaminaqua v OHIM — Energy Brands (vitaminaqua) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark vitaminaqua — Earlier national word marks VITAMINWATER — Earlier Community figurative mark GLACEAU vitamin water — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TA0410
62012TA0410
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
18.1.2014
Official Journal of the European Union
C 15/15
(Case T-410/12)(<span class="super">1</span>)
(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark vitaminaqua - Earlier national word marks VITAMINWATER - Earlier Community figurative mark GLACEAU vitamin water - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2014/C 15/20
Language of the case: Hungarian
Parties
Applicant: Vitaminaqua Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Krajnyák, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Németh and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Energy Brands, Inc. (Whitestone, United States of America) (represented by: S. Malynicz, D. Stone and L. Ritchie, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 997/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Energy Brands Inc. and Vitaminaqua Ltd.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Vitaminaqua Ltd to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.