This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0020
Case C-20/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 January 2014 — BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz
Case C-20/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 January 2014 — BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz
Case C-20/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 January 2014 — BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz
OJ C 129, 28.4.2014, p. 11–11
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
28.4.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 129/11 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 January 2014 — BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz
(Case C-20/14)
2014/C 129/14
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Bundespatentgericht
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH
Defendant: Bodo Scholz
Question referred
Must Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of identical and similar goods and services, there may be taken to be a likelihood of confusion for the public if a distinctive sequence of letters which dominates the earlier word/figurative trade mark of average distinctiveness is made use of in a third party’s later mark in such a way that the sequence of letters is supplemented by a descriptive combination of words relating to it which explains the sequence of latters as an abbreviation of the descriptive words?
(1) Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.