This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015CA0673
Joined Cases C-673/15 P to C-676/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — The Tea Board v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Delta Lingerie (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Word marks and figurative marks including the word element ‘darjeeling’ or ‘darjeeling collection de lingerie’ — Opposition by the proprietor of EU collective marks — Collective marks consisting of the geographical indication ‘Darjeeling’ — Article 66(2) — Essential function — Conflict with applications for registration of individual trade marks — Likelihood of confusion — Definition — Similarity of goods and services — Criteria for assessment — Article 8(5))
Joined Cases C-673/15 P to C-676/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — The Tea Board v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Delta Lingerie (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Word marks and figurative marks including the word element ‘darjeeling’ or ‘darjeeling collection de lingerie’ — Opposition by the proprietor of EU collective marks — Collective marks consisting of the geographical indication ‘Darjeeling’ — Article 66(2) — Essential function — Conflict with applications for registration of individual trade marks — Likelihood of confusion — Definition — Similarity of goods and services — Criteria for assessment — Article 8(5))
Joined Cases C-673/15 P to C-676/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — The Tea Board v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Delta Lingerie (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Word marks and figurative marks including the word element ‘darjeeling’ or ‘darjeeling collection de lingerie’ — Opposition by the proprietor of EU collective marks — Collective marks consisting of the geographical indication ‘Darjeeling’ — Article 66(2) — Essential function — Conflict with applications for registration of individual trade marks — Likelihood of confusion — Definition — Similarity of goods and services — Criteria for assessment — Article 8(5))
OJ C 382, 13.11.2017, p. 13–13
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 20/09/2017
- Date lodged:
- 14/12/2015
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- English
- Type of procedure:
- Appeal - unfounded, Action for annulment
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62015CJ0673
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
13.11.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 382/13 |
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2017 — The Tea Board v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Delta Lingerie
(Joined Cases C-673/15 P to C-676/15 P) (1)
((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word marks and figurative marks including the word element ‘darjeeling’ or ‘darjeeling collection de lingerie’ - Opposition by the proprietor of EU collective marks - Collective marks consisting of the geographical indication ‘Darjeeling’ - Article 66(2) - Essential function - Conflict with applications for registration of individual trade marks - Likelihood of confusion - Definition - Similarity of goods and services - Criteria for assessment - Article 8(5)))
(2017/C 382/14)
Language of the cases: English
Parties
Appellant: The Tea Board (represented by: M. Maier and A. Nordemann, Rechtsanwälte)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Delta Lingerie (represented by: G. Marchais and P. Martini-Berthon, avocats)
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the appeals; |
|
2. |
Orders The Tea Board to pay the costs of the main appeals; |
|
3. |
Orders Delta Lingerie to pay the costs of the cross-appeal. |
