EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018TA0054
Case T-54/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark 1st AMERICAN — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an eagle — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Audi alteram partem rule — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Cross claim)
Case T-54/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark 1st AMERICAN — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an eagle — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Audi alteram partem rule — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Cross claim)
Case T-54/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark 1st AMERICAN — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an eagle — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Audi alteram partem rule — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Cross claim)
OJ C 305, 9.9.2019, p. 46–46
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
9.9.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 305/46 |
Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN)
(Case T-54/18) (1)
(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark 1st AMERICAN - Earlier EU figurative mark representing an eagle - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Audi alteram partem rule - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Cross claim)
(2019/C 305/54)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Fashion Energy Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Retail Royalty Co. (Las Vegas, Nevada, USA) (represented by: M. Dick, Solicitor, and J. Bogatz, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 (Case R 693/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Retail Royalty and Fashion Energy.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 November 2017 (Case R 693/2017-2); |
|
2. |
Dismisses the cross-claim as inadmissible; |
|
3. |
In the main appeal, EUIPO and Retail Royalty Co. are ordered to bear their own costs and to each bear half of the costs incurred by Fashion Energy Srl. |
|
4. |
In the cross-claim, Retail Royalty is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by Fashion Energy and EUIPO. |