Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016TA0045

    Case T-45/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Alfonso Egüed v EUIPO — Jackson Family Farms (BYRON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark BYRON — Earlier non-registered trade mark BYRON — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off — Goodwill — Proof of the acquisition and continued existence of the earlier right)

    OJ C 283, 28.8.2017, p. 37–37 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    28.8.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 283/37


    Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — Alfonso Egüed v EUIPO — Jackson Family Farms (BYRON)

    (Case T-45/16) (1)

    ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BYRON - Earlier non-registered trade mark BYRON - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off - Goodwill - Proof of the acquisition and continued existence of the earlier right))

    (2017/C 283/55)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Nelson Alfonso Egüed (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, Agent)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Jackson Family Farms LLC (Santa Rosa, California, United States)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2015 (Case R 822/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Jackson Family Farms and Mr Alfonso Egüed.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders Mr Nelson Alfonso Egüed to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


    Top