- 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-320/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Sephora v OHIM — Mayfield Trading (Representation of two undulating vertical lines) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark representing two undulating vertical lines — National and international figurative marks representing an undulating vertical line — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TA0320
62014TA0320
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
18.1.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 16/33
(Case T-320/14)
((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark representing two undulating vertical lines - National and international figurative marks representing an undulating vertical line - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 016/40)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Sephora (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: H. Delabarre, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Mayfield Trading Ltd (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2014 (Case R 1577/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sephora and Mayfield Trading Ltd.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Sephora to pay the costs.
OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.