This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CO0094
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 June 2016.
LTJ Diffusion v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
Appeal — EU trade mark — Word mark ARTHUR & ASTON — Opposition from the proprietor of the national semi-figurative mark containing the word element ‘Arthur’ — Opposition dismissed.
Case C-94/16 P.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 June 2016.
LTJ Diffusion v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
Appeal — EU trade mark — Word mark ARTHUR & ASTON — Opposition from the proprietor of the national semi-figurative mark containing the word element ‘Arthur’ — Opposition dismissed.
Case C-94/16 P.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 June 2016 —
LTJ Diffusion v EUIPO
(Case C‑94/16 P)
‛Appeal — EU trade mark — Word mark ARTHUR & ASTON — Opposition from the proprietor of the national semi-figurative mark containing the word element ‘Arthur’ — Opposition dismissed’
|
1. |
Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 6) |
|
2. |
EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark — Subject matter and material scope of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 15(1), second para., (a)) (see para. 6) |
Operative part
|
1. |
The appeal is dismissed. |
|
2. |
LTJ Diffusion is ordered to pay the costs. |