This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TJ0754
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2017.#Oakley, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing a silhouette in the shape of a discontinuous ellipse — Prior EU figurative mark representing an ellipse — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).#Case T-754/16.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2017.
Oakley, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing a silhouette in the shape of a discontinuous ellipse — Prior EU figurative mark representing an ellipse — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).
Case T-754/16.
Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2017.
Oakley, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing a silhouette in the shape of a discontinuous ellipse — Prior EU figurative mark representing an ellipse — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).
Case T-754/16.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2017:786
- Date of document:
- 08/11/2017
- Date lodged:
- 02/11/2016
- Author:
- General Court
- Country or organisation from which the request originates:
- Third countries
- Form:
- Judgment
- Authentic language:
- Spanish
- Type of procedure:
- Action for annulment - unfounded, Action for annulment - successful
- Judge-Rapporteur:
- Svenningsen
- Treaty:
- Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Affected by case:
-
- Related judicial information 62016TA0754
- Instruments cited in case law:
-
- 32009R0207: N 1
- 32009R0207-A41: N 5
- 32009R0207-A08P1LB: N 7 11 17 19 21 67 84 90 115
- 32009R0207-A08P5: N 7 12 17 80 83 84 86 - 88 102 107 113
- 32009R0207-A08P2: N 86
- 32015Q0423(01)-A178P5: N 15
- 32015Q0423(01)-A177P1LB: N 85
- 61997CJ0039-N17: N 73
- 61997CJ0342-N23: N 77
- 62002TJ0115-N11: N 85
- 62002TJ0185-N56: N 47
- 62003TJ0081-N74: N 73
- 62003TJ0389-N52: N 20
- 62003TJ0389-N53: N 22
- 62004TJ0150-N55: N 88
- 62004TJ0277-N34: N 80
- 62005CJ0334-N35: N 30
- 62005CO0235-N36: N 75
- 62006TJ0047-N52: N 101
- 62006TJ0134-N70: N 75
- 62006TJ0165-N54: N 102
- 62006TJ0400-N38: N 53
- 62007CJ0108-N36: N 103
- 62007CJ0108-N53: N 105
- 62007CJ0108-N54: N 105
- 62007TJ0304-N34: N 30
- 62008TJ0108-N25: N 110
- 62010TJ0032-N31: N 100
- 62010TJ0369-N27: N 100
- 62010TJ0369-N28: N 101
- 62010TJ0570-N32: N 105
- 62011TJ0502-N57: N 78
- 62011TJ0502-N58: N 78
- 62012TJ0131-N22: N 88
- 62012TJ0342-N47: N 47
- 62012TJ0342-N52: N 47
- 62012TJ0445-N35: N 16
- 62013TJ0169-N79: N 112
- 62013TJ0263-N25: N 31
- 62013TJ0450-N125: N 62
- 62013TJ0489-N68: N 72
- 62014TJ0201-N17: N 87
- 62014TJ0485-N24: N 21
- 62015TJ0201-N50: N 108
- 62016TJ0002-N59: N 84
- Subject matter:
- Case law directory code:
-
