This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022TA0296
Case T-296/22: Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2023 — Flowbird v EUIPO — APCOA Parking Holdings (FLOWBIRD) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark FLOWBIRD — Earlier EU figurative mark FLOW — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Case T-296/22: Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2023 — Flowbird v EUIPO — APCOA Parking Holdings (FLOWBIRD) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark FLOWBIRD — Earlier EU figurative mark FLOW — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Case T-296/22: Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2023 — Flowbird v EUIPO — APCOA Parking Holdings (FLOWBIRD) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark FLOWBIRD — Earlier EU figurative mark FLOW — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
OJ C, C/2023/978, 27.11.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/978/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
Official Journal |
EN Series C |
|
C/2023/978 |
27.11.2023 |
Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2023 — Flowbird v EUIPO — APCOA Parking Holdings (FLOWBIRD)
(Case T-296/22) (1)
(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark FLOWBIRD - Earlier EU figurative mark FLOW - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(C/2023/978)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Flowbird (Neuilly sur-Seine, France) (represented by: C. Pecnard and M. Simonnet, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer, T. Klee and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: APCOA Parking Holdings GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: M. Straub, lawyer)
Re:
By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 March 2022 (Case R 748/2021-2).
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Flowbird to pay the costs. |
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/978/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)