- 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-251/21: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Tigercat International v EUIPO — Caterpillar (Tigercat) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Tigercat — Earlier EU figurative mark CAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TA0251
62021TA0251
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 340/34
(Case T-251/21) (*)
(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Tigercat - Earlier EU figurative mark CAT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 340/46)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Tigercat International Inc. (Cambridge, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: B. Führmeyer and E. Matthes, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Georgieva, D. Gája and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Caterpillar Inc. (Peoria, Illinois, United States) (represented by: A. Renck and S. Petivlasova, lawyers)
Re:
By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and modification of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 February 2021 (Case R 16/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between the intervener and the applicant.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Tigercat International Inc. to pay the costs.
(*)
Language of the case: English
(OJ C 263, 5.7.2021)