Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62021TA0251

    Case T-251/21: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Tigercat International v EUIPO — Caterpillar (Tigercat) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Tigercat — Earlier EU figurative mark CAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

    OJ C 340, 5.9.2022, p. 34–34 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    5.9.2022   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 340/34


    Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Tigercat International v EUIPO — Caterpillar (Tigercat)

    (Case T-251/21) (1)

    (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Tigercat - Earlier EU figurative mark CAT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

    (2022/C 340/46)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Tigercat International Inc. (Cambridge, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: B. Führmeyer and E. Matthes, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Georgieva, D. Gája and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Caterpillar Inc. (Peoria, Illinois, United States) (represented by: A. Renck and S. Petivlasova, lawyers)

    Re:

    By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and modification of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 February 2021 (Case R 16/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between the intervener and the applicant.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders Tigercat International Inc. to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.


    Top