- 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-847/19: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — X-cen-tek v EUIPO — Altenloh, Brinck & Co. (PAX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark PAX — Earlier EU and international figurative marks SPAX — Relative ground for refusal — Dominant element — No counteraction — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Application of the law ratione temporis)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TA0847
62019TA0847
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
14.12.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 433/48
(Case T-847/19) (*)
(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark PAX - Earlier EU and international figurative marks SPAX - Relative ground for refusal - Dominant element - No counteraction - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Application of the law ratione temporis)
(2020/C 433/60)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG (Wardenburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hillers, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Altenloh, Brinck & Co. GmbH & Co. KG (Ennepetal, Germany)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2019 (Case R 2324/2018-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Altenloh, Brinck & Co. and X-cen-tek.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
(*)
Language of the case: German.
OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.