- 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
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2005. # The Gillette Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Community mark. # Case T-286/03.
ECLI:EU:T:2005:126
62003TJ0286
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‑286/03)
Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark RIGHT GUARD XTREME sport – Earlier national figurative mark WILKINSON SWORD XTREME III – Likelihood of confusion – Refusal of registration – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Figurative marks ‘RIGHT GUARD XTREME sport’ and ‘WILKINSON SWORD XTREME III’ (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 81-82)
Re:
ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 April 2003 (Case R 221/2002-4), refusing registration of the figurative mark RIGHT GUARD XTREME sport.
Information relating to the case
Applicant for the Community trade mark:
Community trade mark sought:
The figurative mark ‘RIGHT GUARD XTREME sport’ for goods in Class 3 – Application No 1486745
Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Wilkinson Sword GmbH
Mark or sign cited in opposition:
German figurative marks ‘WILKINSON SWORD XTREME III’ for goods in Class 3
Decision of the Opposition Division:
Rejection of the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal:
Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and refusal of the applicant’s application
Operative part
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders the applicant to pay the costs.