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
‘(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark InPost — Earlier EU figurative marks INFOPOST and ePOST and earlier national word mark POST — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No detriment to reputation and no dilution — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)’
Language of the case: English
Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented initially by: M. Viefhues and T. Heitmann, and subsequently by M. Viefhues, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the General Court: Verbis Alfa sp. z o.o. (Cracow, Poland) and EasyPack sp. z o.o. (Cracow) (represented by: M. Żabińska, A. Kockläuner and O. Nilgen, lawyers)
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2015 (Case R 546/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Post, on the one hand, and Verbis Alfa and EasyPack, on the other.
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs.
*
Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.