- 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-420/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Wine in Black v OHIM — Quinta do Noval-Vinhos (Wine in Black) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Wine in Black — Earlier Community word mark NOVAL BLACK — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TA0420
62014TA0420
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
6.7.2015
Official Journal of the European Union
C 221/14
(Case T-420/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Wine in Black - Earlier Community word mark NOVAL BLACK - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 221/19)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Wine in Black GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Bauer and V. Ahmann, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M.L. Vuijst and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Quinta do Noval-Vinhos, SA (Pinhão, Portugal)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2014 (Case R 1601/2013-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Quinta do Noval-Vinhos, SA and Wine in Black GmbH.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 March 2014 (Case R 1601/2013-1);
2.Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
(<span class="note"> <a id="ntr1-C_2015221EN.01001401-E0001" href="#ntc1-C_2015221EN.01001401-E0001">*1</a> </span>) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.