- 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-726/21: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2023 — Rolex v EUIPO — PWT (Device of a crown) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a crown — Earlier EU figurative marks representing a crown and ROLEX — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No injury to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TA0726
62021TA0726
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 83/22
(Case T-726/21)
(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a crown - Earlier EU figurative marks representing a crown and ROLEX - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No injury to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2023/C 83/26)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Rolex SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, P. Tent Alonso and V. Gigante Pérez, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: PWT A/S (Aalborg, Denmark) (represented by: A. Skovfoged Melgaard and C. Barrett Christiansen, lawyers)
Re:
By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 August 2021 (Case R 2389/2020-4).
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Rolex SA to pay the costs.
OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.