Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017TA0763

    Case T-763/17: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Septona v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (welly) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark welly — Earlier EU figurative marks Kelly’s and Kelly’s www.kellys.eu CHIPS — Relative ground for refusal — 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 44, 4.2.2019, p. 43–44 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    4.2.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 44/43


    Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2018 — Septona v EUIPO — Intersnack Group (welly)

    (Case T-763/17) (1)

    ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark welly - Earlier EU figurative marks Kelly’s and Kelly’s www.kellys.eu CHIPS - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

    (2019/C 44/54)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Septona AVEE (Oinofyta, Greece) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Intersnack Group GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 (Case R 1525/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Intersnack Group and Septona.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 July 2017 (Case R 1525/2016-1);

    2.

    Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.


    Top