- 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
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 4 October 2007. # Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community word mark VOGUE - Earlier national word mark VOGUE Portugal - Facts raised for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Extent of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal. # Case T-481/04.
ECLI:EU:T:2007:303
62004TJ0481
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
(Case T-481/04)
Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for a Community word mark VOGUE – Earlier national word mark VOGUE Portugal – Facts raised for the first time before the Board of Appeal – Extent of the examination carried out by the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark – Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2)) (see paras 20-21)
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal (OHIM) of 27 September 2004 (Case R 328/2003-2) concerning opposition proceedings between J. Capela & Irmãos, Lda and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.
Information relating to the case
Applicant for the Community trade mark:
Community trade mark sought:
Word mark VOGUE for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 41 – Application No 183756
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Mark or sign cited in opposition:
National word mark VOGUE Portugal for goods in Class 25 and company name VOGUE – SAPATARIA
Decision of the Opposition Division:
Community trade mark refused for the goods and services in question
Decision of the Board of Appeal:
Appeal dismissed
Operative part
The Court: