- 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-257/14: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2015 — Novomatic v OHIM — Berentzen Mally Marketing plus Services (BLACK JACK TM) (Community trade mark — Opposition Proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BLACK JACK TM — Earlier Community word and figurative marks BLACK TRACK — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TA0257
62014TA0257
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
27.4.2015
Official Journal of the European Union
C 138/48
(Case T-257/14)(1)
((Community trade mark - Opposition Proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BLACK JACK TM - Earlier Community word and figurative marks BLACK TRACK - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 138/62)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Berentzen Mally Marketing plus Services GmbH (Meerbusch, Germany)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2014 (Case R 329/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Berentzen Mally Marketing plus Services GmbH and Novomatic AG.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 February 2014 (Case R 329/2012-4);
2.Orders OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.