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.

Case T-700/15: Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Volfas Engelman v OHIM — Rauch Fruchtsäfte (BRAVORO PINTA)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0700

62015TN0700

November 30, 2015
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

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/71

(Case T-700/15)

(2016/C 038/96)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Volfas Engelman AB (Kaunas, Lithuania) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rauch Fruchtsäfte GmbH (Rankweil, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BRAVORO PINTA’ — Application for registration No 10 725 381

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2015 in Case R 1649/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision and allow registration of the CTM 1072538 and;

order OHIM to bear the costs.

Plea in law

The Board of Appeal erred in identifying the relevant public;

The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the relevant public will display an average level of attention;

The Board of Appeal erred by ignoring the significant visual elements of the applied for mark;

The Board of Appeal erred by finding phonetic similarity between the marks;

The Board of Appeal erred in basing the decision on finding that the earlier enjoys enhanced distinctiveness for energy drinks in paragraph 42 of the decision;

The Board of Appeal erred in finding a likelihood of confusion.

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