- 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-312/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2018 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CHATKA — Earlier international figurative mark CHATKA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TA0312
62016TA0312
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-312/16) (*1)
‘(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CHATKA — Earlier international figurative mark CHATKA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))’
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Walfood SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Cornu, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Romanov Holding, SL (La Moraleja, Spain) (represented by: S. García Cabezas and R. Fernández Iglesias, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 (Case R 2870/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Romanov Holding and Walfood.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Walfood SA to pay the costs.
*
(*) Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.