EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TA0233
Case T-233/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Cofra v EUIPO — Armand Thiery (1841) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 1841 — Earlier national word mark AD-1841-TY — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Taking into account of additional evidence — Articles 57(2) and 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 64(2) and 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 19(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Case T-233/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Cofra v EUIPO — Armand Thiery (1841) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 1841 — Earlier national word mark AD-1841-TY — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Taking into account of additional evidence — Articles 57(2) and 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 64(2) and 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 19(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Case T-233/15: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Cofra v EUIPO — Armand Thiery (1841) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark 1841 — Earlier national word mark AD-1841-TY — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Taking into account of additional evidence — Articles 57(2) and 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 64(2) and 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rule 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 19(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))
OJ C 402, 27.11.2017, p. 22–22
(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:
- 10/10/2017
- Date lodged:
- 11/05/2015
- Author:
- General Court
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- English
- Type of procedure:
- Action for annulment - unfounded
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62015TJ0233
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
27.11.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 402/22 |
Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2017 — Cofra v EUIPO — Armand Thiery (1841)
(Case T-233/15) (1)
((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark 1841 - Earlier national word mark AD-1841-TY - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Taking into account of additional evidence - Articles 57(2) and 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 64(2) and 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 40(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 19(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2017/C 402/28)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Cofra Holding AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by M. Capostagno and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Armand Thiery SAS (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by A. Grolée, lawyer)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2015 (Case R 805/2014-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Armand Thiery and Cofra Holding.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
|
1. |
Dismisses the action; |
|
2. |
Orders Cofra Holding AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred, in connection with the present proceedings, by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Armand Thiery SAS. |
