- 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-627/15: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2017 — Frame v EUIPO — Bianca-Moden (BIANCALUNA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark BIANCALUNA — Earlier national figurative mark bianca — Procedural economy — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TA0627
62015TA0627
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
18.12.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 437/26
(Case T-627/15) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark BIANCALUNA - Earlier national figurative mark bianca - Procedural economy - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2017/C 437/30)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Frame Srl (San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, M. Borghese and R. Giordano, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Ochtrup, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 August 2015 (Case R 2952/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Bianca-Moden and Frame.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Frame Srl to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.