- 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-435/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark HIPANEMA — Earlier figurative EU and national trade marks Ipanema and iPANEMA — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the goods — Aesthetically complementary nature — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TA0435
62017TA0435
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
26.11.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 427/56
(Case T-435/17) (*)
(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark HIPANEMA - Earlier figurative EU and national trade marks Ipanema and iPANEMA - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - Aesthetically complementary nature - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2018/C 427/72)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Grendene, SA (Sobral, Brazil) (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: V. Ruzek, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intevener before the General Court: Hipanema (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Witukiewicz Sebban, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2017 (Case R 629/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Grendene and Hipanema.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Grendene, SA, to pay the costs.
(*)
(1) OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.