Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016TA0212

    Case T-212/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2017 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FRee STyLe) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark FRee STyLe — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Equal treatment)

    OJ C 104, 19.3.2018, p. 33–33 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    19.3.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 104/33


    Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2017 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FRee STyLe)

    (Case T-212/16) (1)

    ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark FRee STyLe - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 95 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Equal treatment))

    (2018/C 104/42)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH (Obergriesbach, Germany) (represented by E. Warnke, lawyer)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2016 (Case R 377/2015-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Elho Business & Sport and El Corte Inglés.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders El Corte Inglés, SA, to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


    Top