- 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-840/14: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM — Sky (Sky BONUS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark Sky BONUS — Earlier national word mark SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Inadmissibility)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TB0840
62014TB0840
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 156/43
(Case T-840/14)(1)
((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark Sky BONUS - Earlier national word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 156/58)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 (Case R 2040/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and International Gaming Projects Ltd.
Operative part of the order
1.The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.
2.International Gaming Projects Ltd shall pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.