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
(Case C-115/19 P) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Opposition - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue - Assessment of the distinctive character of the earlier mark)
(2020/C 271/17)
Language of the case: English
Appellant: China Construction Bank Corp. (represented by: A. Carboni and J. Gibbs, Solicitors)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Botis, acting as Agents), Groupement des cartes bancaires (represented by: C. Herissay-Ducamp, lawyer)
The Court:
1.Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 December 2018, China Construction Bank v EUIPO — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CCB) (T-665/17, EU:T:2018:879);
2.Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 June 2017 (Case R 2265/2016-1);
3.Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the present appeal and half of the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the proceedings at first instance;
4.Orders the Groupement des cartes bancaires to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by China Construction Bank Corp. in the proceedings at first instance.
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.