- 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-264/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2018 — Uponor Innovation v EUIPO — Swep International (SMATRIX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark SMATRIX — Prior EU figurative mark AsyMatrix — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Failure to assess an item of evidence produced before the Opposition Division)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TA0264
62017TA0264
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-264/17) (*1)
‘(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark SMATRIX — Prior EU figurative mark AsyMatrix — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Failure to assess an item of evidence produced before the Opposition Division)’
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Uponor Innovation AB (Borås, Sweden) (represented by: A. Kylhammar, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Swep International AB (Landskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Norderyd and C. Sundén, lawyers)
Re: Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2017 (Case R 236/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Swep International and Uponor Innovation.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 March 2017 (Case R 236/2016-2);
2.Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Uponor Innovation in the proceedings before the General Court;
3.Orders Swep International AB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Uponor Innovation in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.
*
(*1) OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.