- 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-328/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Paice v EUIPO — Blackmore (DEEP PURPLE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark DEEP PURPLE — Earlier non-registered mark DEEP PURPLE — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) — Rules governing common-law action for passing-off — No likelihood of misrepresentation)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TA0328
62016TA0328
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
26.11.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 427/41
(Case T-328/16) (*)
(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark DEEP PURPLE - Earlier non-registered mark DEEP PURPLE - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)) - Rules governing common-law action for passing-off - No likelihood of misrepresentation)
(2018/C 427/51)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Engelman, Barrister, and J. Stephenson, Solicitor)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Gája and D. Walicka, Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: initially A. Edwards-Stuart, and subsequently T. Alkin, Barristers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 736/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Paice and Mr Blackmore.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Mr Ian Paice to pay the costs.
(*)
Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.