- 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-589/20: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes v EUIPO — Inticom (MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY — Earlier EU word mark YAMAMAY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Admissibility of new evidence — Alteration of the distinctive character)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TA0589
62020TA0589
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
21.3.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 128/21
(Case T-589/20) (*)
(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY - Earlier EU word mark YAMAMAY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Admissibility of new evidence - Alteration of the distinctive character)
(2022/C 128/30)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes Srl (Surano, Italy) (represented by: R. Fragalà, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Inticom SpA (Gallarate, Italy)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2020 (Case R 1874/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Inticom and Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes Srl to pay the costs.
(*)
Language of the case: Italian
OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.