- 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-777/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Fon Wireless v EUIPO — Henniger (Neofon) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Neofon — Earlier national word mark FON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TA0777
62014TA0777
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
13.6.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 211/47
(Case T-777/14) (*)
((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Neofon - Earlier national word mark FON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 211/58)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Fon Wireless Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Andreas Henniger (Starnberg, Germany) (represented by: T. von Groll-Schacht, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 September 2014 (Case R 2519/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Fon Wireless Ltd and Andreas Henniger.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 September 2014 (Case R 2519/2013-4);
2.Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Fon Wireless Ltd;
3.Orders Andreas Henniger to bear his own costs.
(*) Language of the case: German.
OJ C 26, 26.1.2015