- 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-118/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 February 2018 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO — bpost (BEPOST) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark BEPOST — Earlier EU figurative mark ePost and earlier national word mark POST — Non-registered mark or sign used in the course of trade POST — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No detriment to reputation and no dilution — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TA0118
62016TA0118
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 123/16
(Case T-118/16)(1)
((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark BEPOST - Earlier EU figurative mark ePost and earlier national word mark POST - Non-registered mark or sign used in the course of trade POST - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No detriment to reputation and no dilution - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court))
(2018/C 123/21)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and G. Müllejans, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene and D. Walicka, acting as Agents,)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: bpost NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by L. Hubert and K. Ongena, and subsequently by H. Dhondt and J. Cassiman, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 (Case R 3107/2014-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Post and bpost
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs.
OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.