EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 December 2009. # Matthias Rath v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). # Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word marks Epican and Epican Forte - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark EPIGRAN - Likelihood of confusion - Partial rejection of the application for registration - Appeals manifestly inadmissible. # Joined cases C-488/08 P and C-489/08 P.

ECLI:EU:C:2009:754

62008CO0488

December 4, 2009
With Google you find a lot.
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

(Joined Cases C‑488/08 P and C-489/08 P)

Appeals – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Word marks Epican and Epican Forte – Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark EPIGRAN – Likelihood of confusion – Partial rejection of the application for registration – Appeals manifestly inadmissible

Re:

Appeals brought against the orders of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 8 September 2008 in Case T‑373/06 Rath v OHIM and Grandel and Case T‑374/06 Rath v OHIM and Grandel by which that court dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law the actions for annulment of the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 dismissing in part the actions brought against the decisions of the Opposition Division which, by upholding the opposition of the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘EPIGRAN’, refused to register the word marks ‘EPICAN’ and ‘EPICAN FORTE’ for goods and services in class 5 – Likelihood of confusion of the two marks.

Operative part:

The Court:

1.Dismisses the appeals;

2.Orders Mr Rath to pay the costs.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia