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-622/14) (<a id="ntc1-C_2017129EN.01001501-E0001" href="#ntr1-C_2017129EN.01001501-E0001"> (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)</a>)
((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union word mark IWEAR - Earlier European Union word mark INWEAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 129/24)
Language of the case: English
Applicant: Lauritzen Holding AS (Drøbak, Norway) (represented by: P. Walsh and S. Dunstan, Solicitors)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by P. Bullock and subsequently by D. Hanf, acting as Agents)
Intervener: DK Company A/S (Ikast, Denmark) authorised to replace the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO (represented initially by M. Nielsen and E. Skovbo, and subsequently by E. Skovbo, lawyers)
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2014 (Case R 1935/2013-2), concerning opposition proceedings between IC Companys A/S and Lauritzen Holding.
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Lauritzen Holding AS to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by IC Companys A/S for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
(<a id="ntr1-C_2017129EN.01001501-E0001" href="#ntc1-C_2017129EN.01001501-E0001">(<span class="super">1</span>)</a> OJ C 351, 6.10.2014).