- 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-671/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Turbo-K International v EUIPO — Turbo-K (TURBO-K) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU work mark TURBO-K — Earlier non-registered marks TURBO-K — Relative ground for refusal — Use of a sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off — Goodwill)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TA0671
62017TA0671
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
11.3.2019
Official Journal of the European Union
C 93/54
(Case T-671/17) (*)
((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU work mark TURBO-K - Earlier non-registered marks TURBO-K - Relative ground for refusal - Use of a sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off - Goodwill))
(2019/C 93/68)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Turbo-K International Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Norris and A. Muir Wood, Barristers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Turbo-K Ltd (Winchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. van Haperen, lawyer, T. St Quintin, Barrister, and E. Morris, Solicitor)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2017 (Case R 2135/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Turbo-K and Turbo-K International.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Dismisses the cross-claim as inadmissible;
3.Orders Turbo-K International Ltd and Turbo-K Ltd each to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
(*) Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.