Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017TA0089

Case T-89/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2018 — Erwin Müller v EUIPO — Novus Tablet Technology Finland (NOVUS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark NOVUS — Earlier EU word and figurative marks NOVUS and novus — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court)

OJ C 268, 30.7.2018, p. 35–36 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

201807130592004242018/C 268/43892017TC26820180730EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180619353622

Case T-89/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2018 — Erwin Müller v EUIPO — Novus Tablet Technology Finland (NOVUS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark NOVUS — Earlier EU word and figurative marks NOVUS and novus — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court)

Top

C2682018EN3520120180619EN0043352362

Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2018 — Erwin Müller v EUIPO — Novus Tablet Technology Finland (NOVUS)

(Case T-89/17) ( 1 )

‛(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark NOVUS — Earlier EU word and figurative marks NOVUS and novus — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the goods — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Evidence presented for the first time before the General Court)’

2018/C 268/43Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Erwin Müller GmbH (Lingen, Germany) (represented by: N. Grüger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Mensing and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Novus Tablet Technology Finland Oy (Turku, Finland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2016 (Case R 2413/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Erwin Müller and Novus Tablet Technology Finland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 November 2016 (Case R 2413/2015-4) in so far as it concerns the ‘special holders for mobile phones’ referred to in the trade mark application;

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3.

Orders Erwin Müller GmbH and EUIPO to bear their own respective costs.


( 1 ) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

Top