Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017TA0583

    Case T-583/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst v EUIPO — IOS Finance EFC (IOS FINANCE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark IOS FINANCE — Earlier national figurative mark EOS — Relative ground for refusal — 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 263, 5.8.2019, p. 41–42 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    5.8.2019   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 263/41


    Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst v EUIPO — IOS Finance EFC (IOS FINANCE)

    (Case T-583/17) (1)

    (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark IOS FINANCE - Earlier national figurative mark EOS - Relative ground for refusal - 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 263/46)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: B. Sorg, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, acting as Agent)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: IOS Finance EFC, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2017 (Case R 2262/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst and IOS Finance EFC.

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst GmbH to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.


    Top