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 C-328/18 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2018 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-6/17, Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (Black Label by Equivalenza)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CN0328

62018CN0328

May 17, 2018
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

24.9.2018

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/3

(Case C-328/18 P)

(2018/C 341/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Equivalenza Manufactory, S.L. and ITM Entreprises SAS

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

set aside the judgment under appeal;

order the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The General Court infringed Article 8(1)(b) of the EU trade mark regulation for the following reasons:

1.The General Court contradicted itself by acknowledging that there is a visual similarity while at the same time denying that the signs are visually similar;

2.The General Court erred by confirming without qualification the alleged conceptual difference found by the Board of Appeal;

3.The General Court erred by examining buying habits in the context of the examination of the similarity of the signs, instead of doing so when carrying out the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion;

4.The General Court erred by stating that the signs at issue are not similar, despite having acknowledged that their phonetic similarity is average.

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