Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018TA0054

Case T-54/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark 1st AMERICAN — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an eagle — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Audi alteram partem rule — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Cross claim)

OJ C 305, 9.9.2019, p. 46–46 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

9.9.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/46


Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN)

(Case T-54/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark 1st AMERICAN - Earlier EU figurative mark representing an eagle - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Audi alteram partem rule - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Cross claim)

(2019/C 305/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fashion Energy Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Retail Royalty Co. (Las Vegas, Nevada, USA) (represented by: M. Dick, Solicitor, and J. Bogatz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 (Case R 693/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Retail Royalty and Fashion Energy.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 November 2017 (Case R 693/2017-2);

2.

Dismisses the cross-claim as inadmissible;

3.

In the main appeal, EUIPO and Retail Royalty Co. are ordered to bear their own costs and to each bear half of the costs incurred by Fashion Energy Srl.

4.

In the cross-claim, Retail Royalty is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by Fashion Energy and EUIPO.


(1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.


Top