- 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-76/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Pontinova v EUIPO — Ponti & Partners (pontinova) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark pontinova — Earlier national word mark PONTI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Relevant public — Similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TA0076
62019TA0076
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
29.6.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 215/37
(Case T-76/19) (*)
(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark pontinova - Earlier national word mark PONTI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relevant public - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion)
(2020/C 215/45)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Pontinova AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Röh, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Ponti & Partners, SLP (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 (Case R 566/2018 5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ponti & Partners and Pontinova.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Pontinova AG to pay the costs.
(*)
Language of the case: English
OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.