- 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-73/23: Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2024 – Tertianum v EUIPO – DPF (TERTIANUM) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark TERTIANUM – International registration of the earlier figurative mark Tertianum WOHNEN UND LEBEN IM DRITTEN ALTER – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – No genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Nature of use – Proof of genuine use)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023TA0073
62023TA0073
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 series
—
C/2024/6090
21.10.2024
(Case T-73/23)
(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark TERTIANUM - International registration of the earlier figurative mark Tertianum WOHNEN UND LEBEN IM DRITTEN ALTER - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Nature of use - Proof of genuine use)
(C/2024/6090)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Tertianum AG (Dübendorf, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Fröhlich and M. Hartmann, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, J. Ivanauskas and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: DPF AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)
Re:
By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 November 2022 (Case R 1706/2021-4).
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Tertianum AG to pay the costs.
—
Language of the case: English.
OJ C 121, 3.4.2023.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6090/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—
* * *
—