- 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-44/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2021 — Chanel v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (Representation of a circle containing two interlaced curves) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark representing a circle containing two interlaced curves — Earlier national figurative mark representing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally — Earlier national figurative mark representing a circle containing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TA0044
62020TA0044
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 242/34
(Case T-44/20) (*)
(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark representing a circle containing two interlaced curves - Earlier national figurative mark representing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally - Earlier national figurative mark representing a circle containing two interrupted circles interlaced horizontally - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2021/C 242/45)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Chanel (Neuilly sur-Seine, France) (represented by: J. Passa, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2019 (Case R 1041/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Chanel and Huawei Technologies.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Chanel to pay the costs.
(*) Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.