Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017TA0435

    Case T-435/17: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark HIPANEMA — Earlier figurative EU and national trade marks Ipanema and iPANEMA — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the goods — Aesthetically complementary nature — No 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 427, 26.11.2018, p. 56–56 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    26.11.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 427/56


    Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2018 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA)

    (Case T-435/17) (1)

    (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark HIPANEMA - Earlier figurative EU and national trade marks Ipanema and iPANEMA - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - Aesthetically complementary nature - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

    (2018/C 427/72)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Grendene, SA (Sobral, Brazil) (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: V. Ruzek, acting as Agent)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intevener before the General Court: Hipanema (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Witukiewicz Sebban, lawyer)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2017 (Case R 629/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Grendene and Hipanema.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders Grendene, SA, to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.


    Top