Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014CN0020

    Case C-20/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 January 2014  — BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz

    Information about publishing Official Journal not found, p. 11–11 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    28.4.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 129/11


    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 January 2014 — BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz

    (Case C-20/14)

    2014/C 129/14

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Bundespatentgericht

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH

    Defendant: Bodo Scholz

    Question referred

    Must Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of identical and similar goods and services, there may be taken to be a likelihood of confusion for the public if a distinctive sequence of letters which dominates the earlier word/figurative trade mark of average distinctiveness is made use of in a third party’s later mark in such a way that the sequence of letters is supplemented by a descriptive combination of words relating to it which explains the sequence of latters as an abbreviation of the descriptive words?


    (1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.


    Top