- 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-777/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2017 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden — Earlier EU word mark Isocell, earlier international word mark Isocell and earlier international and national word marks ISOCELL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TA0777
62016TA0777
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 437/31
(Case T-777/16) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden - Earlier EU word mark Isocell, earlier international word mark Isocell and earlier international and national word marks ISOCELL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2017/C 437/37)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Isocell GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Austria) (represented by: C. Thiele, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: iCell AB (Älvdalen, Sweden) (represented by: J. Kroher, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 (Case R 181/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Isocell and iCell.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Isocell GmbH to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.