- 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-297/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Junited Autoglas Deutschland v OHIM — Belron Hungary (United Autoglas) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark United Autoglas — Earlier national figurative mark AUTOGLASS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TA0297
62013TA0297
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
24.11.2014
Official Journal of the European Union
C 421/37
(Case T-297/13)(1)
((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark United Autoglas - Earlier national figurative mark AUTOGLASS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2014/C 421/51
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Rajh and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Belron Hungary Kft — Zug Branch (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Christy, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2013 (Case R 206/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Belron Hungary Kft — Zug Branch and Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1)Dismisses the action;
2)Orders Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.