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 T-336/16) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO - Earlier EU word mark VERSACE - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 392/29)
Language of the case: Italian
Applicant: Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented initially by F. Caricato, and subsequently by M. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gianni Versace SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Francetti, lawyer)
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2016 (Case R 1005/2015-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Gianni Versace and Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo.
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 April 2016 (Case R 1005/2015-1) in so far as the Board of Appeal held that there had been genuine use of the earlier EU mark VERSACE for textile goods (not included in other classes) other than ‘household linen’ in class 24;
2.Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3.Orders Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by EUIPO;
4.Orders EUIPO to bear one half of its own costs;
5.Orders Gianni Versace SpA to bear its own costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.