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-688/18) (*)
(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark CORNEREYE - Earlier EU word mark BACKEYE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier mark acquired through use - Evidence - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Examination of the facts by EUIPO of its own motion - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 137/73)
Language of the case: English
Applicant: Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV (Barneveld, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Pansch, S. Klopschinski and M. von Rospatt, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Brigade Electronics Group plc (Kent, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Hicks, Barrister)
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2018 (Case R 1966/2017 1), relating to opposition proceedings between Brigade Electronics Group and Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf.
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 July 2018 (Case R 1966/2017-1);
2.Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf BV, including the costs necessarily incurred by Exploitatiemaatschappij De Berghaaf for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;
3.Orders Brigade Electronics Group plc to bear its own costs.
(*) Language of the case: English.
(1) OJ C 24, 21.1.2019.
* * *
(2020/C 137/73)